In 2004 Peavy was better, but pitched a lot less. In 2005, he was marginally better, and pitched a little less. Plus, Zambrano was great in 2003, when Peavy struggled, and Zambrano was good in 2002, when Peavy struggled. Z was also obviously much better this year. Peavy does have a great team friendly contract (why don't the Cubs ever sign these types of deals with their young guys?). But the one thing the Cubs have at their disposal is money, and I'd rather they pay more for the better player. not to dwell on the obvious, but shouldn't we be more concerned with who will be better than who was better? I am, Peavy's bad year is a little scary. Zambrano doesn't look to have such concerns.