Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[shnsajax]

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?

 

If anyone finds out the Padres are willing to take fifty cents on the dollar for Peavy then whats to stop the Braves from jumping back in it. They don't need him either but hell if he is that cheap then why not. The Cubs had to offer that much to begin with just to be competitive in the race.

[Wrigley Rat]

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.

I believe the Cubs will deal Cedeno and a RP for Aaron Heilman. He might have been (at least temporarily) taken out of talks for Peavy due to that.

 

That said, I don't think that list of players above is the true "current" list of players agreed upon for Peavy. I think we might get a slightly better deal than that.

[imb]

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?

 

If anyone finds out the Padres are willing to take fifty cents on the dollar for Peavy then whats to stop the Braves from jumping back in it. They don't need him either but hell if he is that cheap then why not. The Cubs had to offer that much to begin with just to be competitive in the race.

 

he has a no-trade clause and doesnt want to go to atlanta?

[RedFlash]

he has a no-trade clause and doesnt want to go to atlanta?

 

And the fact that Atlanta picked up three starters this offseason in Vazquez/Lowe and Kawakami, and yes the Braves have moved on from trying to get Peavy.

Edited January 25, 2009 by RedFlash

[The Other 15]

He'll end up a Cub before ST is over. Padres really have to move him, he really wants to play with the Cubs, and Hendry wants to add another starter. We're just seeing Hendry hold out and try to get the deal done without Vitters or Marshall.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

But we're giving them up for one of the best pitchers in baseball. And he's only 27 to boot.

[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.

 

But we're giving them up for one of the best pitchers in baseball. And he's only 27 to boot.

 

He's bringing with him elbow problems and a monstrous contract.

[dew1679666265]

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.

 

But we're giving them up for one of the best pitchers in baseball. And he's only 27 to boot.

 

He's bringing with him elbow problems and a monstrous contract.

 

I know he's had elbow issues, but how serious are they really? Does anybody know?

 

And as for the contract, we're shedding Harden's contract after this year and Lilly after that. That'll be around $20 million freed up between the two (and hopefully around then we'll have a young starter or two who can step in for them).

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And as for the contract, we're shedding Harden's contract after this year and Lilly after that. That'll be around $20 million freed up between the two (and hopefully around then we'll have a young starter or two who can step in for them).

 

Nobody knows how serious the elbow injury is, that's just the point. He's been of of the best pitchers in baseball for most of the last five seasons, but I'm concerned with what he'll do the next four to five.

 

Buying a guy's age 28, 29, 30, 31 and possibly 32 seasons for big money is usually a break-even proposition, but throw in elbow problems and the loss of a top prospect, and I'm getting awfully iffy about the deal.

[Mephistopheles]

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.

 

But we're giving them up for one of the best pitchers in baseball. And he's only 27 to boot.

 

He's bringing with him elbow problems and a monstrous contract.

 

his contract is below market value. he's a safer bet physically than rich harden. and carlos zambrano. and ted lilly. and ryan dempster. and sean marshall.

[Mephistopheles]

And as for the contract, we're shedding Harden's contract after this year and Lilly after that. That'll be around $20 million freed up between the two (and hopefully around then we'll have a young starter or two who can step in for them).

 

Nobody knows how serious the elbow injury is, that's just the point. He's been of of the best pitchers in baseball for most of the last five seasons, but I'm concerned with what he'll do the next four to five.

 

Buying a guy's age 28, 29, 30, 31 and possibly 32 seasons for big money is usually a break-even proposition, but throw in elbow problems and the loss of a top prospect, and I'm getting awfully iffy about the deal.

 

Our window of opportunity to win a world series is within the next three seasons. our key players on offense are all on the wrong side of thirty. our best pitcher is probably going to suffer a catastrophic injury in the next three to four seasons. our other pitchers are not signed longer than a few more seasons. our system blows. really we're not in a position to win for the years 2011-2014. period. there's nothing we can do about that. Those three seasons are going to be rebuilding years. The next five years after that is anybody's guess. Even if we keep Vitters for 20 years, we're not likely to have a team as good as we have now from 2015-2020. We're certainly not going to have one his first five seasons in the pros. We simply have no need for him, even if he becomes a stud. He's going to make us go from suck to average. Big flippin deal. There's only like a 30% chance he ever becomes that good, but even if it was a 100 percent chance we make this deal. Jake Peavy in our rotation in the immediate future makes us the WS favorite. end of story. for an organization that has been playing for the future for 100 years we'd be stupid to pass up our the best three year window we've had since the thirties.

 

Losing Vitters doesn't mean drek.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

For the window you are talking about, this team is likely to be good enough to win the division and make the playoffs without Jake Peavy. The marginal value isn't there. It's not like the Brewers last season, who really needed Sabathia to make the playoffs.

 

It'd be a mistake to assume we can torch 2011 and beyond just because the immediate future looks a little brighter. This team will have enough money to win the NL Central consistently for 2011 and beyond, as long as they don't do anything stupid like commit big money long-term to pitching when they don't need to.

 

For the next 2-3 years, or however you define the window, what do you think the odds of Peavy being the difference between the Cubs making the playoffs and not is, or even between winning the WS and not is?

 

There will be other Ted Lilly's and Ryan Dempster's and Rich Harden's in our future when those guys peter out, even Derrek Lees and Aramis Ramirez's, as long as we don't go crazy loading up on potentially bad contracts.

[Mephistopheles]

i'd say an increase of 5-10% chance each of the years is significant. we'd go from about an 18% chance to somewhere close to 25% each season. That's gigantic. your concept of marginal value is completely wrong.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

really we're not in a position to win for the years 2011-2014. period. there's nothing we can do about that. Those three seasons are going to be rebuilding years. The next five years after that is anybody's guess. Even if we keep Vitters for 20 years, we're not likely to have a team as good as we have now from 2015-2020. We're certainly not going to have one his first five seasons in the pros. We simply have no need for him, even if he becomes a stud.

 

Good grief, none of this is remotely as certain as you're claiming.

[Mephistopheles]

unless our payroll is second only to the yankees, it's inevitable and certain.

[Sosa21MVP]

really we're not in a position to win for the years 2011-2014. period. there's nothing we can do about that. Those three seasons are going to be rebuilding years. The next five years after that is anybody's guess. Even if we keep Vitters for 20 years, we're not likely to have a team as good as we have now from 2015-2020. We're certainly not going to have one his first five seasons in the pros. We simply have no need for him, even if he becomes a stud.

 

Good grief, none of this is remotely as certain as you're claiming.

 

Nah I checked his math. He nailed it. :hello: :-))

[Guest]

unless our payroll is second only to the yankees, it's inevitable and certain.

 

It's great that we have somebody on the board who can see five to 10 years into the future with perfect certainty.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

unless our payroll is second only to the yankees, it's inevitable and certain.

 

No, it's really quite the opposite. Look at history, or better yet, look at how many guaranteed contracts the team has for 2015-2020

[Mephistopheles]

unless our payroll is second only to the yankees, it's inevitable and certain.

 

No, it's really quite the opposite. Look at history, or better yet, look at how many guaranteed contracts the team has for 2015-2020

 

Number of Cubs teams with 95 wins in the last 98 years: 4

Number of teams with 95 wins in the 3 years: 6

 

That's four percent and six percent, respectively. I like my chances.

[Mephistopheles]

And I thought you were referring to the comments about the first half of the decade. It's not as certain the second half, but the odds we have one as good as we do now are still quite small. We should absolutely be trading away Vitters.

[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.

 

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.

 

Ben Sheets is not a great alternative to Jake Peavy.

[Backtobanks]

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.

 

Ben Sheets is not a great alternative to Jake Peavy.

 

Comparing Peavy to Sheets is a no-brainer, but comparing Peavy to Sheets, Vitters, Hart, Marshall, and an extra $30-40 million over the next few years isn't quite as obvious.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think Sheets is quite comparable to Peavy. The key difference between the two is Sheets has a larger injury history. But performance wise, Peavy is better, but not better to pass on the bargain that Sheets might be, especially if the Padres have extremely enormous demands.

 

2008

Sheets- 198.3 IP, 3.09 ERA, 1.150 WHIP, 139 ERA +, 158/47 (K/BB).

Peavy- 173.7 IP, 2.85 ERA, 1.180 WHIP, 134 ERA+, 166/59.

 

In the most recent season, Sheets pitched more innings and allowed fewer baserunners per inning.

 

Performance wise, Sheets is just as good a pitcher as Peavy. The risk with Sheets is this (156, 106, 141, 198). Those are the innings pitched over the last four seasons.

 

With Peavy, he's been over 200IP in every season except 2008.

 

But when both pitchers are on the mound, the talent they bring is pretty close.

 

If we were talking about signing Sheets to a Peavy-ish deal, I'd probably go ahead and make the deal for Peavy. But if Sheets could be had for 3/39 or less (and indications are that he could), and the Cubs get to keep Vitters and Castillo, then I'd definitely choose Sheets over Peavy.

[Electron Blue]

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.

 

Ben Sheets is not a great alternative to Jake Peavy.

 

Comparing Peavy to Sheets is a no-brainer, but comparing Peavy to Sheets, Vitters, Hart, Marshall, and an extra $30-40 million over the next few years isn't quite as obvious.

 

Not to mention that agreeing to a deal with Ben Sheets in this economy and this stage of the offseason wouldn't likely be terribly difficult, versus not even knowing if Towers will accept a trade of those players AND that our new owner will even agree to pay for it AND the wildcard all along, whether the padres owner will even require that Peavy needs to go...

 

I want Peavy pretty bad -- and I won't even try and justify with dollar figures and stats -- the fan in my really wants to absorb an Ace into my team's staff. He alone would make next season fun. But all that aside, I can definitely get on board the Sheets logic. (and, hey, I guess he's an ace, too ;))

[cubsfan26]

I think Sheets is quite comparable to Peavy. The key difference between the two is Sheets has a larger injury history. But performance wise, Peavy is better, but not better to pass on the bargain that Sheets might be, especially if the Padres have extremely enormous demands.

 

2008

Sheets- 198.3 IP, 3.09 ERA, 1.150 WHIP, 139 ERA +, 158/47 (K/BB).

Peavy- 173.7 IP, 2.85 ERA, 1.180 WHIP, 134 ERA+, 166/59.

 

In the most recent season, Sheets pitched more innings and allowed fewer baserunners per inning.

 

Performance wise, Sheets is just as good a pitcher as Peavy. The risk with Sheets is this (156, 106, 141, 198). Those are the innings pitched over the last four seasons.

 

With Peavy, he's been over 200IP in every season except 2008.

 

But when both pitchers are on the mound, the talent they bring is pretty close.

 

If we were talking about signing Sheets to a Peavy-ish deal, I'd probably go ahead and make the deal for Peavy. But if Sheets could be had for 3/39 or less (and indications are that he could), and the Cubs get to keep Vitters and Castillo, then I'd definitely choose Sheets over Peavy.

 

 

The problem with Sheets right now, is most think his arm/shoulder are about to go. Sheets is a very good pitcher, and wouldn't still be on the market if he didn't have something wrong with him. If a team offered him 3y at 39m I think he would jump at that offer. But it doesn't seem like anybody is willing to offer him that since his medical reports(or past reports), have pointed out very negative things about his arm. At this point he would be lucky to get a 2 year deal, but he shouldn't be counted on to be healthy with his arm/shoulder in the shape it is in.