Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[UMFan83]

Meanwhile, a deal for pitcher Jake Peavy remains on the back burner. The Cubs have between $8 million and $10 million remaining in their budget before they reach the magic $140 million payroll level that has been cited as their ceiling. They also have only one player to sign: a left-handed-hitting, defense-minded backup catcher, probably Paul Bako at around $500,000.

 

That means there should be enough room to fit Peavy in under the '09 budget; he's scheduled to make $9 million this year and has $63 million remaining on his contract, the bulk of it from 2010-12.

 

Hendry acquired five pitching prospects in recent deals with Cleveland and Baltimore, and a couple of them could be sent to San Diego in a deal for Peavy. Hendry also back-loaded contracts for Ryan Dempster and Milton Bradley for more flexibility this year. Peavy still wants to be a Cub, and the Padres still want to unload his contract. Everything seems to be in place except final approval of the new owner and a physical to determine whether Peavy's elbow is sound.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-24-cubs-changes-chicagojan24,0,5693918.story

 

Sounds like speculation by Sullivan, but he seems to be reporting as fact.

[inari]

If only I trusted Sullivan at all.

[Clem Fandango]

Hmmmm... it's a shame Sullivan isn't very reliable, because like you said he appears to be stating it as if he knows for sure it's going to happen. I just don't have much belief that what he's saying is true. At least it's something to talk about though

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sullivan adds math to the list of things in which he is deficient.

[badnews]

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical push for Peavy. The Pads would know the Cubs were determined, almost mandated, to make a big splash. So what is stopping them from making the asking price almost prohibitive? You can have what you want but you have to pay the price, or go back to your fans empty handed. Why don't the Padres ask for Carlos Marmol, Mike Fontenot, Garrett Olson, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo, Dae-Eun Rhee, Josh Vitters, Jay Jackson, Larry Suarez, and more? Why don't they just get every prospect on the Cubs that's won't need to be protected on the roster for two years or so and see what happens, in addition to getting the bigger prospects. Is there a price that *is* too high? Would it even be possible for the Padres to ask for too much, assuming of course Soto is left out of the discussion.

[Guest]

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical push for Peavy. The Pads would know the Cubs were determined, almost mandated, to make a big splash. So what is stopping them from making the asking price almost prohibitive? You can have what you want but you have to pay the price, or go back to your fans empty handed. Why don't the Padres ask for Carlos Marmol, Mike Fontenot, Garrett Olson, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo, Dae-Eun Rhee, Josh Vitters, Jay Jackson, Larry Suarez, and more? Why don't they just get every prospect on the Cubs that's won't need to be protected on the roster for two years or so and see what happens, in addition to getting the bigger prospects. Is there a price that *is* too high? Would it even be possible for the Padres to ask for too much, assuming of course Soto is left out of the discussion.

 

Because the Cubs don't have to make a big splash. The Yankees had to make a big splash so they went and signed Sabathia, Tex, and Burnett. The Mets needed to make a big splash so they signed K Rod. The Cubs don't need to do anything like that, though. And while the Cubs would prefer to get Peavy, the Cubs also know that the Padres are strapped with payroll limitations and would like to deal Peavy and the Cubs are pretty much the only team in the running at the moment, so both teams have something they can use to their advantage, though nothing that will allow either team to completely rip the other off.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical push for Peavy. The Pads would know the Cubs were determined, almost mandated, to make a big splash. So what is stopping them from making the asking price almost prohibitive? You can have what you want but you have to pay the price, or go back to your fans empty handed. Why don't the Padres ask for Carlos Marmol, Mike Fontenot, Garrett Olson, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo, Dae-Eun Rhee, Josh Vitters, Jay Jackson, Larry Suarez, and more? Why don't they just get every prospect on the Cubs that's won't need to be protected on the roster for two years or so and see what happens, in addition to getting the bigger prospects. Is there a price that *is* too high? Would it even be possible for the Padres to ask for too much, assuming of course Soto is left out of the discussion.

 

Because the Padres have even worse constraints than fan pressure. They have an owner mandate to lower payroll to a point that demands Peavy be dealt, and Peavy and his agent have essentially made the Cubs his only possible destination.

[Guest]

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical push for Peavy. The Pads would know the Cubs were determined, almost mandated, to make a big splash. So what is stopping them from making the asking price almost prohibitive? You can have what you want but you have to pay the price, or go back to your fans empty handed. Why don't the Padres ask for Carlos Marmol, Mike Fontenot, Garrett Olson, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo, Dae-Eun Rhee, Josh Vitters, Jay Jackson, Larry Suarez, and more? Why don't they just get every prospect on the Cubs that's won't need to be protected on the roster for two years or so and see what happens, in addition to getting the bigger prospects. Is there a price that *is* too high? Would it even be possible for the Padres to ask for too much, assuming of course Soto is left out of the discussion.

Because there are still alternatives in the marketplace for the Cubs to go after. For example, as long as Sheets is out there, the Cubs have leverage.

[BigbadB]

It sounded like the Padres got a bit ridiculous with the demands during the winter meetings, which basically ended the discussion for the time being.

 

Moorad did step up to the plate to purchase the Padres. However, everything I've read stated he won't take complete control of the team for about 4 years.

 

What I speculate from this is that Moorad's money right now is just to make Moores soon-to-be ex-wife go away, and that Moores still wants his payroll to be reduced to 40m.

 

There has to be a lot of pressure on Towers at the moment. Moores isn't the one who gave Peavy the NTC. I'm pretty certain Towers would have been the one to do that. If Towers can't move Peavy, thus failing at reducing payroll to where Moores wants it, his job could be in jeopardy.

 

Everything else I read is just posturing, IMO.

[The Voice of Reason]

But just how much the Rickettses -- with a family worth estimated at $1.3 billion -- might want to commit to payroll (Peavy is due $63 million over the next four years) after reportedly ramping up their bid to near 70 percent of the family's worth ($900 million) is unclear, especially with final negotiations yet to come. Beyond that, the Cubs have had internal discussions about the wisdom of taking on a highly paid pitcher for four years (five at $81 million if he requires his 2013 option to be exercised to waive his no-trade rights) who has had elbow and shoulder problems in recent years (albeit, no surgery) -- not to mention the wisdom of trading off a large, high-end chunk of the farm system, including 2007 top draft pick Josh Vitters, rated the 14th-best prospect in pro baseball by Baseball America.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/1395086,cst-spt-cub24.article

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Beyond that, the Cubs have had internal discussions about the wisdom of taking on a highly paid pitcher for four years (five at $81 million if he requires his 2013 option to be exercised to waive his no-trade rights) who has had elbow and shoulder problems in recent years (albeit, no surgery)

 

Good for them.

[RammyFanny]

According to Levine, Peavy would cost them Jeff Stevens, Garrett Olson, Josh Vitters (although the Cubs do not want to trade him), Kevin Hart and Welington Castillo.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumor012409.php

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

At that price, we should see what Sheets would cost on a 2-3 year deal. While I like Peavy, a lot, and I don't think he's the health risk that Sheets is, Sheets is nearly as good and wouldn't cost Vitters and Castillo.

[Cubswin11]

According to Levine, Peavy would cost them Jeff Stevens, Garrett Olson, Josh Vitters (although the Cubs do not want to trade him), Kevin Hart and Welington Castillo.

http://chicagocubsonline.com/archives/2009/01/cubsrumor012409.php

I personally don't think that is a lot to give up.

 

Vitters- Still at least 2-3 years away and not a sure thing, we are in a win now mode and by the time he could arrive we might not be a contender

Olson- Likely a bullpen guy/spot starter at best with the Cubs this year, Marshall is better and would start the season in the rotation.

Stevens- Good minor league numbers, but doesn't have overwhelming stuff and it might not translate to the majors. Bullpen guys are a dime a dozen.

Hart- See Stevens

Castillo- Blocked by Soto, probably 2-3 years away as well, wouldn't more than a backup with Soto around might as well trade him while he still has value/perceived potential to get better.

 

Overall I think that's a fair trade it would suck giving up Vitters but you need to give up quality to get it. I agree that with Sheets still out there we should look into it, if he is willing to take 1@8-12 or 2@16-20 it might be smarter to sign him and keep the prospects. Sheets is just as good as Peavy. Also I found it interesting that bit about Cedeno for Heilman. Heilman wouldn't be a bad guy to add to the bullpen/spot start.

[Post Count Padder]

Vitters is highly rated but hasn't shown much yet and is a few years away. Olson isn't much of a loss and neither is Stevens. Hart isn't that good, and we have Soto and other catchers in the system like Clevenger so losing Castillo doesn't hurt too much. Overall, we're not giving up too much outside of Vitters.

[Post Count Padder]

Also, why isn't Cedeno mentioned? Do the Padres not want him? Granted he's still young and talented, but with the signing of Miles and possible signing of Uribe mentioned in another thread, he's gotta go somewhere.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Vitters is highly rated but hasn't shown much yet and is a few years away. Olson isn't much of a loss and neither is Stevens. Hart isn't that good, and we have Soto and other catchers in the system like Clevenger so losing Castillo doesn't hurt too much. Overall, we're not giving up too much outside of Vitters.

 

We're committing possibly up to 5/$81. That's the biggest thing we're giving up.

[RedFlash]

At that price, we should see what Sheets would cost on a 2-3 year deal. While I like Peavy, a lot, and I don't think he's the health risk that Sheets is, Sheets is nearly as good and wouldn't cost Vitters and Castillo.

 

And the best part, seeing as the Rangers already got our 1st rder (please correct if I am wrong), so all that it would cost the Cubs at worst, a 2nd rd draft pick.

 

I am kinda of torned on which pitcher the Cubs should target. Personally the price for Peavy in terms of prospects (remember the Cubs would be giving up ONLY two of their own prospect Vitters and Castillo)---according to Levine---isn't too much. In fact that "The Levine Idea" is a similar package to what Milwaukee gave Cleveland for CC. One blue chip prospects plus 3-4 players based on potential, and that deal was for a half season of CC. A similar package for a Top 10 pitcher under control for the next 4 ys, is prolly a good deal for the Cubs, considering in the next two yrs both Lilly and Harden contracts will be up.

 

With that said, I won't be heartbroken if the Cubs "settle" on a Milton Bradleyesque contract with Ben Sheets that is a 2 yr deal worth 20-25 mill plus a option with health clause built into the deal.

[Tryptamine]

At that price, we should see what Sheets would cost on a 2-3 year deal. While I like Peavy, a lot, and I don't think he's the health risk that Sheets is, Sheets is nearly as good and wouldn't cost Vitters and Castillo.

 

And the best part, seeing as the Rangers already got our 1st rder (please correct if I am wrong), so all that it would cost the Cubs at worst, a 2nd rd draft pick.

 

I am kinda of torned on which pitcher the Cubs should target. Personally the price for Peavy in terms of prospects (remember the Cubs would be giving up ONLY two of their own prospect Vitters and Castillo)---according to Levine---isn't too much. In fact that "The Levine Idea" is a similar package to what Milwaukee gave Cleveland for CC. One blue chip prospects plus 3-4 players based on potential, and that deal was for a half season of CC. A similar package for a Top 10 pitcher under control for the next 4 ys, is prolly a good deal for the Cubs, considering in the next two yrs both Lilly and Harden contracts will be up.

 

With that said, I won't be heartbroken if the Cubs "settle" on a Milton Bradleyesque contract with Ben Sheets that is a 2 yr deal worth 20-25 mill plus a option with health clause built into the deal.

 

If I remember correctly Milton was a type B. So the Rangers get a sandwich pick and the Cubs don't lose anything.

[cubsfan26]

And the best part, seeing as the Rangers already got our 1st rder (please correct if I am wrong), so all that it would cost the Cubs at worst, a 2nd rd draft pick

 

Bradley was a type B, the Rangers got a sandwich pick. Not one of the Cubs 1st or 2nd round picks.

[RedFlash]

While looking back at it, considering the Cubs pick 32 in the first rd (if the Mariners don't sign Fields), it would essentially be a 2nd rd pick disguised as a 1st rd pick. Still not a bad deal for the Cubs.

[rawaction]

At that price, we should see what Sheets would cost on a 2-3 year deal. While I like Peavy, a lot, and I don't think he's the health risk that Sheets is, Sheets is nearly as good and wouldn't cost Vitters and Castillo.

 

Yeah, I think that's too much. I think those are the two most likely prospects the Cubs have to be star players, since Samardzija and Cashner project better as relievers.

[Mephistopheles]

Your system blows when your most likely star players are wellington castillo and someone else.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Your system blows when your most likely star players are wellington castillo and someone else.

 

acknowledging that fact, then deciding that the best solution is to give up on what little bit is left seems like a bad deal to me.

[SouthSideRyan]

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical push for Peavy. The Pads would know the Cubs were determined, almost mandated, to make a big splash. So what is stopping them from making the asking price almost prohibitive? You can have what you want but you have to pay the price, or go back to your fans empty handed. Why don't the Padres ask for Carlos Marmol, Mike Fontenot, Garrett Olson, Jeff Samardzija, Welington Castillo, Dae-Eun Rhee, Josh Vitters, Jay Jackson, Larry Suarez, and more? Why don't they just get every prospect on the Cubs that's won't need to be protected on the roster for two years or so and see what happens, in addition to getting the bigger prospects. Is there a price that *is* too high? Would it even be possible for the Padres to ask for too much, assuming of course Soto is left out of the discussion.

 

Here is what I am not understanding about the theoretical dumping of Peavy. The Cubs know that the Pads are determined, nay mandated to dump salary in order to reach their budget for this season. So what is stopping them from making the return for him criminally low? We want Peavy, but you're going to do it for what we want otherwise trade away everyone else on your team without a no-trade clause. Why don't the Cubs just offer Nate Spears or less? Why don't they ask for the Padres to throw in a prospect in return for their trouble. Is there a price that *is* too low? Would it even be possible for the Cubs to lowball the Padres?