Peavy Puts Kibosh on Trade to White Sox (P. 8)

[jersey cubs fan]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You either have to improve the run scoring or the run preventing. If they think they can count on Peavy for a bunch of low scoring 7 inning games, bridging the gap over the horrible 5/6 inning relievers, and they don't see an opportunity to improve at the need positions of 3B/2B, they might feel the need to do so. They've spent a ton of money on the outfield in recent years. They've spent on keeping the corner guys.

[SouthSideRyan]

I see Sox fans getting excited about this and I will laugh if Peavy turns it down. On the other end, is their really much difference between the Padres and the Sox. A bad offense with a couple of decent pitchers. I can't imagine the Sox fate being much different than the Padres.

 

Come on, the White Sox offense is easily better than San Diego's, as is their rotation and pen outside of Peavy. Plus the White Sox are committed to winning and operate a payroll that reflects that, while the Padres are being held to a $40 million payroll. There's a huge difference. But if I'm Peavy I'm thinking that if the White Sox aren't my ideal destination, its very likely that more of these deals will pop up over the course of the next 2 months.

 

Not the best stat to quote but the Sox have 7 more runs than the Pads and they play in a hitters park in the AL.

 

The season's not over yet. The White Sox hitters have a much better track record over their careers than the Padres hitters sans Gonzalez.

 

But they're all 54 years old.

[Little Slide Rooter]

11:52am: ESPN's Jerry Crasnick talked to Axelrod, who gave the impression that Peavy is leaning against accepting the trade:

 

"If I had to make a bet on it, I would guess that Jake would say he's not ready to take that step today. But he wouldn't necessarily preclude it at any time in the future."

 

Peavy maintains his strong preference for the NL.

[Guest]

Here's the part I don't get.

 

You are Kevin Towers. You have a player with an NTC. Why are you fielding offers from teams for Peavy when you know you have to have Peavy's approval?

 

Wouldn't it make sense to have Peavy's blessing before you embarrass yourself and work out deals that aren't going to happen.

[Guancous]

Has anyone discussed the Cubs acquiring Peavy this offseason?

 

Seriously, is there any plausible offer where we can get Peavy without giving up Vitters?

[SouthSideRyan]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move.

[UK1679666180]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You either have to improve the run scoring or the run preventing. If they think they can count on Peavy for a bunch of low scoring 7 inning games, bridging the gap over the horrible 5/6 inning relievers, and they don't see an opportunity to improve at the need positions of 3B/2B, they might feel the need to do so. They've spent a ton of money on the outfield in recent years. They've spent on keeping the corner guys.

 

Is it really run prevention though?

 

Is Marshall to Peavy a greater run prevention than less IP from Heilman, Cotts, etc. or greater run production by keeping espec. Miles, Freel, Scales, Johnson (vs. RH'ers) etc with a more capable bat?

 

If the Cubs need a starting pitcher, I'd be for it, heck I was for it when it was being discussed, but I think there are bigger issues than Marshall to Peavy. I don't think they can get Peavy and also improve the bench and pen. It will likely be less expensive as far as what they give up to improve the pen and bench compared to Peavy.

[SouthSideRyan]

Is Marshall to Peavy a greater run prevention than less IP from Heilman, Cotts, etc. or greater run production by keeping espec. Miles, Freel, Scales, Johnson (vs. RH'ers) etc with a more capable bat?

 

Well if you count on Peavy giving you an extra inning per game than Marshall that gives you one less inning from the dregs of the pen. I would think that combined with Peavy's greater run prevention over the (let's say hypothetically) 6 innings that Marshall would've pitched, then yes, I think it's greater than the 1 or 2 ABs or 1 or 2 innings per game difference. (This is all assuming Marshall is part of a hypothetical Peavy trade)

[UK1679666180]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move.

 

Sure you don't make those trades in May, but still need the pieces to do so come June/July. The Cubs aren't going to improve the pen and bench properly w/out trading valued prospects (it won't be Vitters, but it won't Chirinos or Dubois either). I'd rather see the Cubs hang onto Vitters, Samardzija, etc. than trade for Peavy, given where the Cubs' window is.

 

You make safeguards with Z and Harden throughout the year by monitoring their workloads better.

[SouthSideRyan]

Here's the part I don't get.

 

You are Kevin Towers. You have a player with an NTC. Why are you fielding offers from teams for Peavy when you know you have to have Peavy's approval?

 

Wouldn't it make sense to have Peavy's blessing before you embarrass yourself and work out deals that aren't going to happen.

 

To put public pressure on Peavy to accept a trade so he can get the best possible trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

Is Marshall to Peavy a greater run prevention than less IP from Heilman, Cotts, etc. or greater run production by keeping espec. Miles, Freel, Scales, Johnson (vs. RH'ers) etc with a more capable bat?

 

Well if you count on Peavy giving you an extra inning per game than Marshall that gives you one less inning from the dregs of the pen. I would think that combined with Peavy's greater run prevention over the (let's say hypothetically) 6 innings that Marshall would've pitched, then yes, I think it's greater than the 1 or 2 ABs or 1 or 2 innings per game difference. (This is all assuming Marshall is part of a hypothetical Peavy trade)

 

You also have to consider how willing they appear to be to shove Marshall into the bullpen, and the whole 140 inning plateau.

[CubColtPacer]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move.

 

Not to mention that for upgrading you need prospects and the Peavy trade might diminish that.

 

But I do agree that the money thing would be a bigger factor..and since we don't even know if there's room in the budget for Peavy this year, there almost certainly wouldn't be room for him and other upgrades.

 

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

Personally, I'm not willing to pay a great deal for a guy who after this season would have a 4 year, 70 million dollar commitment. It's a fair deal that Peavy has, but the Cubs would be reticent to sign any free agent pitcher to that deal with the money they have tied up in Z, Dempster, and Lilly.

 

When you add in that Peavy is not a free agent and that you'd also have to give up some good prospects to get him, it makes even less sense. And then you factor in that you're sitting down a good pitcher for the playoffs (one of Dempster/Lilly/Harden) and you're either taking a pretty good pitcher out of the rotation or trading him (Marshall).

 

Essentially, the Cubs would be going for broke in 2009. 2010 and beyond would have worse versions of the ballclub every year with Peavy than without. That isn't really Peavy's fault, but he just doesn't fit with the players and contracts the Cubs have right now unless Ricketts really wants to take the team into Yankees territory on salaries.

[UK1679666180]

Is Marshall to Peavy a greater run prevention than less IP from Heilman, Cotts, etc. or greater run production by keeping espec. Miles, Freel, Scales, Johnson (vs. RH'ers) etc with a more capable bat?

 

Well if you count on Peavy giving you an extra inning per game than Marshall that gives you one less inning from the dregs of the pen. I would think that combined with Peavy's greater run prevention over the (let's say hypothetically) 6 innings that Marshall would've pitched, then yes, I think it's greater than the 1 or 2 ABs or 1 or 2 innings per game difference. (This is all assuming Marshall is part of a hypothetical Peavy trade)

 

To me, the 60 or IP from a quality BP'er over Heilman/Cotts is worth more than the 30 IP as well as the production throughout the 1st 5 IP. That's before factoring that it won't take giving up Vitters as well.

[jersey cubs fan]

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything.

[Post Count Padder]

According to ESPN.com, Jake Peavy's agent "expressed doubt Thursday that his client is ready to sign off on a proposed trade" with the White Sox.

The agent, Barry Axelrod, told ESPN's Jerry Crasnick that his client still has a "strong preference" to remain in the National League. "If I had to make a bet on it, I would guess that Jake would say he's not ready to take that step today,'' Axelrod said. "But he wouldn't necessarily preclude it at any time in the future." Peavy is scheduled to start Friday. If he takes the mound, it'll be a good indication that he isn't prepared to sign off on the deal.

Source: ESPN.com

[jersey cubs fan]

According to ESPN.com, Jake Peavy's agent "expressed doubt Thursday that his client is ready to sign off on a proposed trade" with the White Sox.

The agent, Barry Axelrod, told ESPN's Jerry Crasnick that his client still has a "strong preference" to remain in the National League. "If I had to make a bet on it, I would guess that Jake would say he's not ready to take that step today,'' Axelrod said. "But he wouldn't necessarily preclude it at any time in the future." Peavy is scheduled to start Friday. If he takes the mound, it'll be a good indication that he isn't prepared to sign off on the deal.

Source: ESPN.com

 

That's some darn impressive analysis right there.

[CubColtPacer]

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything.

 

No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years.

 

Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky.

[jersey cubs fan]

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything.

 

No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years.

 

Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky.

 

He's paying a whole heck of a lot across the board in the OF without getting all that great of production out there. I don't see that as being among the best at big ticket purchases.

[SouthSideRyan]

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything.

 

No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years.

 

Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky.

 

The thing is, Harden and Gregg are the only free agents making any money after this season. I love me some Rich Harden, but I think(and would assume most would agree) that Peavy will be worth his contract more than Harden worth his next one. I guess if the economy stinks next offseason, Harden could wind up a bargain, but I really don't see a lot of holes for the Cubs to plug this offseason. Obviously it's a long ways away and a million things will happen before then, but I don't see why you'd hold off on acquiring Jake Peavy based on future offseasons. His contract is pretty damn big, but it's not something a big market team can't handle.

 

ETA: That pargagraph is a jumbled mess. I understand that re-signing Harden and Gregg aren't the only options, I guess what I'm getting at, is there isn't a lot of places to upgrade in the offseason. Some bullpen help isn't a lot to ask out of an offseason.

Edited May 21, 2009 by SouthSideRyan

[Cubswin11]

I'll be disappointed if this deal doesn't go thru, I would've looked forward to Peavy in Chicago.

 

There is another team in the city he could play for.

 

Why? So the Cubs could still blow games with this bullpen and no bench?

 

The difference between Marshall and Peavy isn't worth the upgrades needed to improve the bullpen and bench (now regulars since they can't stay healthy). Even though the farm is improving, they don't have enough to improve every sector of the team.

 

You don't trade for bench and bullpen guys in May. You don't give up important prospects for them either. Upgrading the bench/pen has nothing to do with a Peavy trade unless it's a matter of money. I crave Peavy more as a safeguard for injuries to Zambrano or Harden than as a replacement for Sean Marshall. If you can make the Peavy trade without giving up Marshall, you upgrade the pen and rotation all in one move.

 

Not to mention that for upgrading you need prospects and the Peavy trade might diminish that.

 

But I do agree that the money thing would be a bigger factor..and since we don't even know if there's room in the budget for Peavy this year, there almost certainly wouldn't be room for him and other upgrades.

 

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

Personally, I'm not willing to pay a great deal for a guy who after this season would have a 4 year, 70 million dollar commitment. It's a fair deal that Peavy has, but the Cubs would be reticent to sign any free agent pitcher to that deal with the money they have tied up in Z, Dempster, and Lilly.

 

When you add in that Peavy is not a free agent and that you'd also have to give up some good prospects to get him, it makes even less sense. And then you factor in that you're sitting down a good pitcher for the playoffs (one of Dempster/Lilly/Harden) and you're either taking a pretty good pitcher out of the rotation or trading him (Marshall).

 

Essentially, the Cubs would be going for broke in 2009. 2010 and beyond would have worse versions of the ballclub every year with Peavy than without. That isn't really Peavy's fault, but he just doesn't fit with the players and contracts the Cubs have right now unless Ricketts really wants to take the team into Yankees territory on salaries.

Yeah we'd be going for it this year (we have like a 2 year window right now) but between this upcoming offseason and next year we could potentially lose Gregg, Harden, Lee, Ramirez, Lilly, and Bradley. Harden and Gregg would be FA after this year Lee and Lilly are FA after 2010 and Bradley/Ramirez have either player/team options after 2010 so they might not be back. We would have plenty of room to add a guy or to if needed the next two offseasons.

[BRASKYS SCOTCH]

Here's the part I don't get.

 

You are Kevin Towers. You have a player with an NTC. Why are you fielding offers from teams for Peavy when you know you have to have Peavy's approval?

 

Wouldn't it make sense to have Peavy's blessing before you embarrass yourself and work out deals that aren't going to happen.

 

To put public pressure on Peavy to accept a trade so he can get the best possible trade.

 

The question is if he's a gambler or knew the chances were highly unlikely that Peavy would accept a trade to the White Sox. These reports surface, and other GM's take notice. I doubt many believed the White Sox to be on the radar for possible Peavy destinations, and clearly the value in the trade is favoring they buyer. How many GMs will now contact Towers and start upgrading from the White Sox offer, and can Towers create bidding between teams? It seems early to do this, but maybe he's afraid of being stuck with a meager offer closer to the deadline? And if Peavy had accepted - or will accept - then Towers gets rosy over "prospects" while knowing he saved money and came in under budget, which will keep his owner happy.

 

Desperate but potentially clever.

[RynoRules]

I'd much rather go and get a second baseman who can rake over getting Peavy at this point.

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

Just say no Jake!

[jersey cubs fan]

I'd much rather go and get a second baseman who can rake over getting Peavy at this point.

 

Okay, your next assignment is to find that guy. The thing is, Peavy is available, and all reports indicate he'd prefer the Cubs over anybody. Utley and Kinsler aren't exactly available.

[CubColtPacer]

Here's the question for the Peavy supporters. If the Cubs were to get Peavy, are you satisfied with him as the entire 2009 offseason no matter what happens the rest of this year? The Cubs would lose Harden and Gregg after the season and likely have no free agent signings besides bench players.

 

I don't see the need to assume that would be it for the offseason, but it's not like Hendry has been brilliant in the offseason anyway. His best attribute is probably in the trading game. Giving him money to burn doesn't really guarantee anything.

 

No, it doesn't, but it does give him the flexibility to upgrade the position that actually needs upgrading. And Hendry has really been one of the better GM's in the league at signing guys to big deals (9-10 million+ per year). He has a good track record of that...it's the middle deals (2-7 million) that have mostly hurt him over the years.

 

Plus, the Cubs are going to need a cheap player or two to slot in around the diamond over the next couple years if they plan to maintain their roster, and taking away from that pool for yet another high priced player is extremely risky.

 

He's paying a whole heck of a lot across the board in the OF without getting all that great of production out there. I don't see that as being among the best at big ticket purchases.

 

The Cubs are in the top 10 in baseball in all 3 OF positions for total production. Even with throwing the numbers of the backups in, they are averaging around an 855 OPS from the OF. That is really, really good for an entire OF. One of them is struggling and not earning his contract right now while the other 2 are.

 

Then you throw in that it's an average to slightly above average OF defensively.