Re: Peavy High on Cubs Wish List

[David]

I'm actually more excited about Bradley than Peavy.

 

I'm extremely excited about both, and it would be one hell of an offseason considering it was supposed to be rather uneventful.

[dew1679666265]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

The idea is to not get swept in the postseason. The more good talent you add, the more likely it is to win - though that's certainly not the only factor.

[Post Count Padder]

Levine on ESPN:

 

-says trade may not happen this week but still thinks it gets done

 

-says to keep eye on Milton Bradley. Cubs are talking to him. Says Cubs are front-runner and wouldn't be surprised if they signed him to a 2 or 3 year deal for $7-10 million per. Cubs asked about his health.

Get Bradley signed! Please!

 

How's his character been? I'm not the biggest believer in clubhouse chemistry, but that guy is a stark raving nutcase. I hope he doesn't lose his cool, because I fear for anyone around him at that time.

He's still a hot-head. But apparantly last year he became a better teammate and a clubhouse leader and was a mentor to Hamilton.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

You're complaining that they're trying to improve the team too much?

 

I mean, you have a point, but as a fan, I'd have no problem with trying to field a team with all stars at every position. Sure, the playoffs are a crapshoot, but I'd rather be betting on the 6 or 8 than the 10....

 

I'm complaining about the team going a little too far in "win right now and screw the future" mode. If you can get Bradley, you are a playoff team in the NL to as certain of a degree as you can make it.

 

Save Vitters and keep your payroll flexibility.

[UMFan83]

I mean the Yankees tried to field an All Star at every position, but not all of their players were good fits. I don't necessarily think that's the case here. I'm not even sure if even with Bradley we have a dominant hitter, but I think if Bradley can put up .400/.550 he's the closest thing we have.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

The idea is to not get swept in the postseason. The more good talent you add, the more likely it is to win - though that's certainly not the only factor.

 

I'm mostly tongue-in-cheek on the "too much" thing, but the odds of any individual player being the difference in a five-game playoff series is almost nil.

[dew1679666265]

-says to keep eye on Milton Bradley. Cubs are talking to him. Says Cubs are front-runner and wouldn't be surprised if they signed him to a 2 or 3 year deal for $7-10 million per. Cubs asked about his health.

 

Hopefully the contract is on the very low end of that $7-10 mil range. I'll be okay with, but fearful of, anything on the upper end.

[cubswin2009]

So basically every newspaper says they would be shocked if this deal doesn't get done but the Cubs themselves say they are nowhere close to a deal. Leads me to believe they're bluffing.

[haubrich91]

Levine on ESPN:

 

-says trade may not happen this week but still thinks it gets done

 

-says to keep eye on Milton Bradley. Cubs are talking to him. Says Cubs are front-runner and wouldn't be surprised if they signed him to a 2 or 3 year deal for $7-10 million per. Cubs asked about his health.

Get Bradley signed! Please!

 

How's his character been? I'm not the biggest believer in clubhouse chemistry, but that guy is a stark raving nutcase. I hope he doesn't lose his cool, because I fear for anyone around him at that time.

He's still a hot-head. But apparantly last year he became a better teammate and a clubhouse leader and was a mentor to Hamilton.

 

I'm sure that would change if he went to a winning ball club.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

So basically every newspaper says they would be shocked if this deal doesn't get done but the Cubs themselves say they are nowhere close to a deal. Leads me to believe they're bluffing.

 

Leads me to believe the newspapers are buying Towers' desperate spin.

[dew1679666265]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

The idea is to not get swept in the postseason. The more good talent you add, the more likely it is to win - though that's certainly not the only factor.

 

I'm mostly tongue-in-cheek on the "too much" thing, but the odds of any individual player being the difference in a five-game playoff series is almost nil.

 

I know, I wasn't 100% serious in my response. I figure our farm system is crap enough already, might as well go all out now.

[17 Seconds]

If Hendry misses out on Peavy because him and Lou are obsessed with adding some crappy right fielder I'm seriously going to flip out.

 

Do you really think that's what's going on? That a deal for Jake Peavy wouldn't get done because the Cubs were obsessing over adding an OF (which they need)? Is Jim Hendry incapable of multitasking?

 

I'm not trying to be an ass, but I just think it's funny when people think things like this.

 

Think about it.

 

Hendry has said over and over and over that a LH bat for RF is their number 1 priority. Lou has repeatedly said the same as well. Multiple reports have stated that they want to take care of that before they add Peavy. There could be some truth to that. Also, they pretty much have to dump Marquis if they want to add both a RF and Peavy. What if Jim feels like he might not be able to dump Marquis and doesn't want to get Peavy, then be stuck with Marquis and not be able to afford one of the guys he's obsessed with?

 

I'm not saying that would happen, but if Jim feels it could, then I could see the reports of him wanting to add a RF first being true. During that time, C.C./Lowe/Burnett could sign. Then we have teams who missed out suddenly re-thinking Peavy, and perhaps Jake finds another team that he is interested in going to. I mean, that report about Jake singing "go cubs go" also said that Jake told the guy if he didn't end up with the Cubs, he'd end up with the Yankees.... meaning he'd accept a trade there. We don't think Cashman would trade his young players, but if he misses out on CC and Burnett a lot of things could change. They are desperate for SP.

 

The bottom line is that the longer this drags out (especially if other SP start signing soon), the better chance there is of a another team emerging and peaking Towers interest and Peavy's as well. We have a chance to get him right now.

Edited December 9, 2008 by 17 Seconds

[UMFan83]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

You're complaining that they're trying to improve the team too much?

 

I mean, you have a point, but as a fan, I'd have no problem with trying to field a team with all stars at every position. Sure, the playoffs are a crapshoot, but I'd rather be betting on the 6 or 8 than the 10....

 

I'm complaining about the team going a little too far in "win right now and screw the future" mode. If you can get Bradley, you are a playoff team in the NL to as certain of a degree as you can make it.

 

Save Vitters and keep your payroll flexibility.

 

True to an extent. I think most Cubs fans just want to win now and management is going overboard to give that to him. Leave no stone unturned in an effort to improve the team. If Bradley signs at 3/30, its not going to hurt us that much when he's getting 10 million at age 33 unless he gets seriously hurt or goes bonkers. If we take Peavy's 5 years left on his deal, its probably not that bad for long term. I understand the prospects side of things, but when have the Cubs ever been frugal with prospects? Vitters is probably as much of a sure thing as Felix Pie was supposed to be, and now Pie is just being used to facilitate a trade for Peavy and no one cares. OK, maybe Vitters is more of a sure thing since he grew up playing baseball, but my point stands.

[dew1679666265]

Levine on ESPN:

 

-says trade may not happen this week but still thinks it gets done

 

-says to keep eye on Milton Bradley. Cubs are talking to him. Says Cubs are front-runner and wouldn't be surprised if they signed him to a 2 or 3 year deal for $7-10 million per. Cubs asked about his health.

Get Bradley signed! Please!

 

How's his character been? I'm not the biggest believer in clubhouse chemistry, but that guy is a stark raving nutcase. I hope he doesn't lose his cool, because I fear for anyone around him at that time.

He's still a hot-head. But apparantly last year he became a better teammate and a clubhouse leader and was a mentor to Hamilton.

 

I'm sure that would change if he went to a winning ball club.

 

The Pads were winning when he threw a temper tantrum over a questionable call and shredded his hamstring (I think) and was out for the season as they were pursuing the wild card.

 

It's not the reason I don't like him, but he's been a hot head on winners in the past.

[UMFan83]

Bradley and Peavy? Isn't there a point when it's just wasteful and inefficient? Do you really need to try to win 110 games in the regular season?

 

The idea is to not get swept in the postseason. The more good talent you add, the more likely it is to win - though that's certainly not the only factor.

 

I'm mostly tongue-in-cheek on the "too much" thing, but the odds of any individual player being the difference in a five-game playoff series is almost nil.

 

You're a big fan of regressions. How do we even know the Cubs will get into the playoffs without Peavy and Bradley? DeRosa should regress, Soto could regress, Theriot could regress, Ramirez should have an age related regression, Lee etc. The pen is already worse than last years shaky one, Dempster and Harden you said yourself should regress. Never take making the playoffs for granted.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

True to an extent. I think most Cubs fans just want to win now and management is going overboard to give that to him. Leave no stone unturned in an effort to improve the team. If Bradley signs at 3/30, its not going to hurt us that much when he's getting 10 million at age 33 unless he gets seriously hurt or goes bonkers. If we take Peavy's 5 years left on his deal, its probably not that bad for long term. I understand the prospects side of things, but when have the Cubs ever been frugal with prospects? Vitters is probably as much of a sure thing as Felix Pie was supposed to be, and now Pie is just being used to facilitate a trade for Peavy and no one cares. OK, maybe Vitters is more of a sure thing since he grew up playing baseball, but my point stands.

 

It's Peavy's contract that concerns me more than anything. That is not nothing. It's a lot like Soriano's, though blessedly a little shorter.

 

There will always be a Peavy in the offseason, the guy you could probably have if you could just find the payroll for him. I can easily see this team needing one more guy in a few seasons and just running out of room.

[UMFan83]

True to an extent. I think most Cubs fans just want to win now and management is going overboard to give that to him. Leave no stone unturned in an effort to improve the team. If Bradley signs at 3/30, its not going to hurt us that much when he's getting 10 million at age 33 unless he gets seriously hurt or goes bonkers. If we take Peavy's 5 years left on his deal, its probably not that bad for long term. I understand the prospects side of things, but when have the Cubs ever been frugal with prospects? Vitters is probably as much of a sure thing as Felix Pie was supposed to be, and now Pie is just being used to facilitate a trade for Peavy and no one cares. OK, maybe Vitters is more of a sure thing since he grew up playing baseball, but my point stands.

 

It's Peavy's contract that concerns me more than anything. That is not nothing. It's a lot like Soriano's, though blessedly a little shorter.

 

There will always be a Peavy in the offseason, the guy you could probably have if you could just find the payroll for him. I can easily see this team needing one more guy in a few seasons and just running out of room.

 

I know you don't value Peavy as much as most here, but Soriano signed an 8 year deal at age 30. Peavy has 5 years left on a deal and is 27. I wouldn't expect much regression from Peavy over the next 5 years, or at least not nearly as much as Soriano at age 38.

[imb]

oh for god's sake, you want a team with the best players you can

 

if you get peavy and the choice is between bradley and standing pat in the outfield, and you can get bradley, why in the world would you say "nah, we're good" if you think bradley will help the team?

 

it makes no sense, put the best team out there and roll with it.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

You're a big fan of regressions. How do we even know the Cubs will get into the playoffs without Peavy and Bradley? DeRosa should regress, Soto could regress, Theriot could regress, Ramirez should have an age related regression, Lee etc. The pen is already worse than last years shaky one, Dempster and Harden you said yourself should regress. Never take making the playoffs for granted.

 

All those things going wrong at the same time aren't very likely. If half those things happen, they still win 90 games and make the playoffs. Bradley is a pretty good insurance policy in case things get really, really unlucky.

 

I'm not completely certain I want to pay $35 million right now for 2011 and 2012 Peavy just to get 2009 and 2010 Peavy.

 

[pulling numbers out of thin air to make a point]Peavy's the difference between a 90% chance of making the playoffs and a 92% chance of making them plus the difference of starting him instead of Ted Lilly in those playoffs. I'm not sure that's worth the commitment in money and prospects. It probably is, but I'm not whole-hog excited about the prospect.[/pulling numbers out of thin air to make a point]

[Hairyducked Idiot]

True to an extent. I think most Cubs fans just want to win now and management is going overboard to give that to him. Leave no stone unturned in an effort to improve the team. If Bradley signs at 3/30, its not going to hurt us that much when he's getting 10 million at age 33 unless he gets seriously hurt or goes bonkers. If we take Peavy's 5 years left on his deal, its probably not that bad for long term. I understand the prospects side of things, but when have the Cubs ever been frugal with prospects? Vitters is probably as much of a sure thing as Felix Pie was supposed to be, and now Pie is just being used to facilitate a trade for Peavy and no one cares. OK, maybe Vitters is more of a sure thing since he grew up playing baseball, but my point stands.

 

It's Peavy's contract that concerns me more than anything. That is not nothing. It's a lot like Soriano's, though blessedly a little shorter.

 

There will always be a Peavy in the offseason, the guy you could probably have if you could just find the payroll for him. I can easily see this team needing one more guy in a few seasons and just running out of room.

 

I know you don't value Peavy as much as most here, but Soriano signed an 8 year deal at age 30. Peavy has 5 years left on a deal and is 27. I wouldn't expect much regression from Peavy over the next 5 years, or at least not nearly as much as Soriano at age 38.

 

Soriano isn't a pitcher. Didn't the whole industry agree that four-year deals for pitchers were suicide or something?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

oh for god's sake, you want a team with the best players you can

 

For 2009 only? Or should we have any thought at all to how that might effect 2010, 2011, 2012?

[imb]

yes, having peavy and bradley on the cubs for the next three years would surely hurt the team.

 

the only thing moving in this trade that would hurt is vitters, and he's no sure thing, and he's at least three years away, anyway.

[17 Seconds]

oh for god's sake, you want a team with the best players you can

 

For 2009 only? Or should we have any thought at all to how that might effect 2010, 2011, 2012?

 

you said it yourself. if we get peavy that pretty much guarantees our rotation is at least solid for the next several years.

[cubswin2009]

oh for god's sake, you want a team with the best players you can

 

For 2009 only? Or should we have any thought at all to how that might effect 2010, 2011, 2012?

We'll have a 35 year old Soriano playing LF and a 36 year old Derrek Lee playing 1B in a few years. ](*,)

[Hairyducked Idiot]

yes, having peavy and bradley on the cubs for the next three years would surely hurt the team.

 

the only thing moving in this trade that would hurt is vitters, and he's no sure thing, and he's at least three years away, anyway.

 

Committing, say, $30 million of the 2011 payroll doesn't cause you to blink the slightest eye?