Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[shnsajax]

Weren't the Padres emphatic about getting a pitching heavy deal though.. or was that just if it was with the Cubs?

 

Either way, we shouldn't really be putting much, if any, stock into what that guy said. I've never even heard of him and he was clearly way off with the first package he mentioned with the Cubs.

 

I think that was with anyone they would trade Peavy too. I think they would take any legit top prospect, but they a number of pitchers regardless.

[Wrigley Rat]

So I'm bored. What about some guesses as to who the Cubs will trade for Peavy when this finally goes down (which it will). I think Hendry does everything he can to hold onto Vitters and Marshall, so I see it looking something like this:

1) Garrett Olson (a target of Towers)

2) Welington Castillo (his stock will never be higher)

3) Jeff Stevens (a target of Towers)

4) Kevin Hart (loved by Towers)

5) Mitch Atkins (his stock will never be higher)

6) Jose Ascanio (been hyped a bit this off-season - maybe getting starter's innings at Iowa)

For

Jake Peavy

 

If he is forced to give up Vitters or Marshall (definitely not both), I say we end up with a young pitcher in the Ceda mold who barely (if at all) touches the Padres top 30 prospects list and we keep Castillo, Atkins, and Ascanio.

[JockJones]

Aside from Weaver that package isn't great. Willits isn't much, Wood is decent but hasn't produced at all in a small sample size of major league games and Adenhart really struggled last year at AAA. I wouldn't say that it just crushes the Cubs offer.

[RedFlash]

If the Angels seriously make that offer, then I guess we're looking at other options. No way any other team would be able to beat that. Yes, yes, Peavy can block a trade but I think he said he'd go to the Angels.

 

I've always gotten the feeling that if push comes to shove Peavy would much rather stay in the NL then stay in California. If the Cubs totally dropped out acquiring him, I could see him accepting a trade to the Angels. If the Angels felt confident that they could get him, why haven't they? My guess is they know Peavy wants to go to the Cubs, hence the sproadic interest from the Angels.

[CubsWin]

So I'm bored. What about some guesses as to who the Cubs will trade for Peavy when this finally goes down (which it will). I think Hendry does everything he can to hold onto Vitters and Marshall, so I see it looking something like this:

1) Garrett Olson (a target of Towers)

2) Welington Castillo (his stock will never be higher)

3) Jeff Stevens (a target of Towers)

4) Kevin Hart (loved by Towers)

5) Mitch Atkins (his stock will never be higher)

6) Jose Ascanio (been hyped a bit this off-season - maybe getting starter's innings at Iowa)

For

Jake Peavy

 

If he is forced to give up Vitters or Marshall (definitely not both), I say we end up with a young pitcher in the Ceda mold who barely (if at all) touches the Padres top 30 prospects list and we keep Castillo, Atkins, and Ascanio.

Unless Towers values Olson about the same as Marshall, I can't see the Padres accepting a deal without one of Marshall or Vitters involved. It's possible, though. If the above happens, Hendry would deserve major props.

 

If forced to choose between high end value or major league ready pitching, I don't know what Towers would do. Obviously, it would better the Cubs chances this year to trade Vitters. But, I'd rather gamble on Vitters' ceiling and give up Marshall.

 

Marshall and Olson provide a fairly good return in and of themselves for Peavy considering the Padres money situation. Since I have no idea what Towers wants, any three prospects not named Vitters, Cashner, Samardzjia, Rhee, Hak-Ju Lee or Jay Jackson, would be fine with me. I'd try to keep Castillo if it's not a deal breaker. The same with Starlin Castro and Ryan Flaherty. Otherwise, they can choose three between Hart, Guzman, Ascanio, Stevens, Atkins, etc.

[badnews]

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.

 

You think one, single pitcher (who wasn't even that great last season in terms of total value) is worth 1/14th of a championship every season to this team? That's insanity. That's Khalil Greene-territory.

 

Not really. Let's just do a rough take on the situation. For now let's make a couple relative assumptions.

 

1.) Without Peavy the Cubs have a 100% chance of making the playoffs.

2.) With Peavy the Cubs have a 100% chance of making the playoffs.

3.) Rich Harden is able to make one start in the NLDS with or without Peavy

4.) Cubs starts in a 7 game series w/o Peavy: 2 for Z, 2 for Demp, 2 for Lilly, 1 for Harden.

5.) Cubs starts in a 7 game series w/ Peavy: 2 for Z, 2 for Peavy, 1 for Demp, Lilly and Harden.

6.) The Cubs offense coupled with pitching staff #4 is an average team faced in rounds 2 and 3 of a hypothetical playoff.

7.) The Cubs offense coupled with pitching staff #3 w/o Peavy is an average team faced in round 1 of a hypothetical playoff.

8.) The Cubs offense is a 5.00 runs per 9 innings offense. That's ~825 run offense.

9.) The career SP-RA is to be used for each starting pitcher.

10.) We're slotting the Cubs bullpen as a 3.00 RA bullpen in the 9th inning, 3.50 in the 8th, 4.00 in the 7th and 4.50 in the 1-6th.

 

Obviously, since we're assuming that the Cubs without Jake Peavy are an average playoff team, the Cubs chances of winning the World Series under these assumptions is 12.5%. How about once we trade for Jake Peavy? Well we go ~98 win team to a ~105 win team, once you make the proper adjustments. Our chances of wining the World Series improve to 21.4%. Nearly a nine percent increase in this model.

 

If we make the same assumptions for 2010 and 2011, which is of course a big assumption unlike the ones I've already made, then the chances we go title-less in the three years without Peavy is over two-thirds but if we trade for Peavy, we're better than a coin flip bet to win at least one title the next three years.

 

I don't know about you, but I like those odds. I like them very much.

 

Hey look everyone. It's the same shady math that Meph used to guarantee that Fukudome would be a significantly better offensive player than he actually is. Despite the fact I pointed out most of the players it didn't work for. Oh well. Fukudome is still awesome. He's Japanese.

 

The nonsense you continually comes up with never ceases to amaze me. There was the "Jake Peavy is better than Johan Santana" nonsense. Then there was the nonsensical "This formula proves Fukudome will be good, I guarantee it," nonsense. Then there was the "Investing $300 million in a 4 year deal for Yu Darvish is underpaying."

 

How do I put this? A lot of the time you are full of crap. And the fact that you are full of crap with a lot of certainty doesn't fool anyone with any sense that you are still full of crap.

 

Good day.

[Mephistopheles]

Another classless, baseless, pointless, fact-less attack directed at me by badnews.

 

I'm shocked.

[Mephistopheles]

Well not really.

[wilk]

It's true... Meph's math is always pretty hilarious.

[imb]

we're not a 98 win team and jake peavy is not worth 7 wins

[Bote McBoteface]

Uh...so yeah, no team is ever a 100% sure shot to make the playoffs.

[ConstableRabbit]

Uh...so yeah, no team is ever a 100% sure shot to make the playoffs.

I think he was using 100% for the sake of argument. We're not 100%, but we're a pretty high pct. as of right now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I thought Meph's layout was reasonable. Sure, it'd be nice to use real assumptions and actually lay out how you get the numbers, but he illustrated the general point he was making.l

[Mephistopheles]

we're not a 98 win team and jake peavy is not worth 7 wins

 

When we're only starting Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Rich Harden we are. And that's all that mattered under the scenario. The Cubs went 51-24 last season in games started by those three. As I stated, I built in regression for Dempster and Harden. The numbers I came up with have Jake Peavy being about a run better per start than Ryan Dempster. Ryan Dempster's getting 2/5ths of the starts....over 162 games that's 65 starts.......65 runs give or take a few. In the playoffs where the teams are so evenly matched, one run a game is pretty substantial, don't you think?

 

Uh...so yeah, no team is ever a 100% sure shot to make the playoffs.

 

No duh. The Cubs might have the highest chance of making it in baseball. Adding Jake Peavy only makes it more likely than without him...obviously.

[Wrigley Rat]

Once Wolf, Garland, and Looper sign with other teams, Hendry's bargaining power will be seriously reduced. He has gone on record as saying he'd like to sign another starter. I say he pulls off the Peavy deal within a week of one of those guys signing somewhere.

 

Two things I wonder about: I wonder if the Cubs will still be required to pick up Peavy's option. And I wonder if there is enough time to take Vitters and Marshall out of negotiations. My guess is we pick up the option and trade one of Marshall or Vitters.

[mdwilla]

Since Chicago is Peavy's place of choice to pitch I don't see him demanding the option be picked up.

[MixmastaMiguel]

I really feel like the thing that is holding this up is getting a 3rd team involved (Seattle). The Padres want Vitters, Olson, Hart, and someone like Stevens or Castillo. The last guy they want is either Marshall or Heilman. I think the Cubs like Marshall better because he's a lefty and would be our lefty bullpen guy, so they are trying to work out a deal to send Cedeno and Wuertz/Vizcaino to Seattle for Heilman and then trade Heilman to SD. I really think the trade turns out to be something like this:

 

Vitters, Olson, Hart, Stevens/Castillo, and Heilman for Peavy

[cubbinalltheway]

wow i can't believe i just read the phrase "no duh" on here. thought this was a place for the grownups!

[C.C.]

wow i can't believe i just read the phrase "no duh" on here. thought this was a place for the grownups!

 

Deeerrrrrr!!!!

[Blue W]

wow i can't believe i just read the phrase "no duh" on here. thought this was a place for the grownups!

 

What would possibly give you that idea?

[Wrigley Rat]

I really feel like the thing that is holding this up is getting a 3rd team involved (Seattle). The Padres want Vitters, Olson, Hart, and someone like Stevens or Castillo. The last guy they want is either Marshall or Heilman. I think the Cubs like Marshall better because he's a lefty and would be our lefty bullpen guy, so they are trying to work out a deal to send Cedeno and Wuertz/Vizcaino to Seattle for Heilman and then trade Heilman to SD. I really think the trade turns out to be something like this:

 

Vitters, Olson, Hart, Stevens/Castillo, and Heilman for Peavy

Interesting perspective - I had only been thinking of Heilman for our bullpen, but that could be true! I personally think Castillo's value today is more than Stevens' value, but I feel that Stevens will end up to be more valuable to a MLB team than Castillo would.

[Post Count Padder]

I really feel like the thing that is holding this up is getting a 3rd team involved (Seattle). The Padres want Vitters, Olson, Hart, and someone like Stevens or Castillo. The last guy they want is either Marshall or Heilman. I think the Cubs like Marshall better because he's a lefty and would be our lefty bullpen guy, so they are trying to work out a deal to send Cedeno and Wuertz/Vizcaino to Seattle for Heilman and then trade Heilman to SD. I really think the trade turns out to be something like this:

 

Vitters, Olson, Hart, Stevens/Castillo, and Heilman for Peavy

Interesting perspective - I had only been thinking of Heilman for our bullpen, but that could be true! I personally think Castillo's value today is more than Stevens' value, but I feel that Stevens will end up to be more valuable to a MLB team than Castillo would.

If we were to acquire Heilman, I'd use him in a Peavy trade if the Pads want him. We still have Gaudin, but I'd want to keep one of Marshall/Olson/Heilman, preferably Marshall.

[Mephistopheles]

wow i can't believe i just read the phrase "no duh" on here. thought this was a place for the grownups!

 

You read it because I can't say no [expletive].

[Hairyducked Idiot]

wow i can't believe i just read the phrase "no duh" on here. thought this was a place for the grownups!

 

Deeerrrrrr!!!!

 

uhhh....doi?!?

[moorecg]

http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200901263772514

 

this has probably been posted...I haven't seen it though so i thought I'd put it up