LetsPlayTwo1679629188

I don't really see all that many "middle range FA starters" as being available. Even guys like Oliver Perez and Jon Garland are going to command dollars that small market teams can't afford. I suppose there could be a few nontenders out there, but it would be a real shocker that teams are so fruitful with starting pitchers that they can afford to nontender one. A guy like Randy Johnson isn't going to sign with KC. He'll get a deal with a team that has a reasonable chance to make the playoffs, or he will take his toys and go home. A couple weeks ago I heard someone on MLB radio talking about FA pitchers. That person (Buck Martinez I think) said that a FA pitcher usually costs $1 million per win. Based on what starters are getting lately this seems pretty accurate. If a team could get Marquis for 5 million on a one year deal they'd probably consider that a bargain. We all hate Marquis but he could help a lot of teams by eating innings to protect their younger pitchers. There's also the walk year factor. Agreed, for as much as Marquis is disliked around here he is really a average #4 starter and above average #5 starter. His salary might be a little inflated for his production but I am sure Hendry can find a team to take him on for $6-7 mil for this season, if we can make up the remaining $2.5-3.5 mil I think it's a decent deal if we can get back prospect(s), or a piece to complete the Peavy trade. Add in the fact that Marquis is in his last year of his contract, usually players perform better in contract seasons, $6-7 mil for 11-13 wins isn't all that bad plus it is almost guaranteed he pitches 180-200 innings, which makes him more attractive to teams with younger pitchers/injury prone pitchers. If Olsen is really the missing piece in the Peavy trade, a Pie+Marquis@$6-7 mil for Olsen+a prospect isn't all that bad of a trade, and I would think Marquis has some appeal to the Orioles as they have younger pitching and they probably want a guy that is going to take the ball every 5 days and go close to 200 innings and win 12 games. Like I said above, why even jinx it by asking for a prospect? If Marquis is the only hold up, lets just bite the bullet and give Marquis to Baltimore with Pie. Seems to me they would jump at Pie and Marquis for Olson and then we would have a done deal, if Marquis is indeed the only sticking point.

You make it seem like getting rid of Marquis and a majority of his salary will be easy. Who is going to pay $9.875M for a back of the rotation starter next year? I'm assuming the the Cubs would pick up some, but I would think the team trading for him would have to pay him at least $7M next year. If Marquis is the only obstacle, why don't we just give him to Baltimore with Pie? It seems to me they'd be glad to take Marquis and Pie for Olson. I don't necessarily like just giving Marquis away like that, but it sure is worth it to me to dump his $9.875 salary and net us Peavy. Am I missing something?

Henderson and Blyleven

You can make a case for most of these players, but Santo is so obviously deserving that I just can't see how a case could be made against him. How can he not be in the Hall?

Sometimes things just come together against all odds. I'm hoping this is one of those times . For some reason, Towers seems to really want Olson. And apparently MacPhail is still really high on Pie. Even though Baltimore has no pitching, seems set in the outfield, and has no shortstop, MacPhail turned down Greene for Olson, but seems willing to do Pie for Olson. These things come together for us almost like a perfect storm. If replacing Pie with Olson in our package offered to the Padres gets us Peavy, don't ask why, just pray it happens! :beg:

and put him in the major league bullpen? He's got to make the MLB roster or be waived. I'd rather give him a shot in ST and see if he can pull it together. It's unlikely, but I'd rather do that instead of just basically giving him away as an extra piece that doesn't really make or break the deal in any way. If one of those teams is high on him and they thing he's a key part of the deal that's fine, but I think they'd see him as a throw in type guy. Last year he was basically untouchable and now we're talking about giving him away as like the 5th piece in a trade. I doubt if we could get Scott out of the deal without Hill being included. Marquis is more of a salary dump for us than a positive piece for Baltimore, don't you think? If you don't want Scott, we could probably keep both Hill and Marquis, but why do that?

I'm thinking those three plus Cedeno goes to San Diego, Marquis and Hill go with Pie to Baltimore, San Diego sends Greene to Baltimore, and Baltimore sends us Scott. We get Peavy and Scott! We lose Marquis' salary and both Hill and Pie are out of options anyway. That would be fantastic IMO. San Diego loses Peavy and Greene's salary, gets Cedeno to replace Greene at SS, and gets the 2 young ML-ready SPs they're looking for, plus a great prospect in Vitters. Baltimore gets 1 year of Greene and Marquis and can extend them if they do well for them, and Hill and Pie are who they wanted last year. I hope there is something to this.

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves. From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think? If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done. Yeah I saw a big list of prospects and assumed they were from our system. I realized the mistake pretty much instantly and edited it out, I was hoping nobody saw it. Still though, I'd much prefer to keep Harden, and although Harden's deal is small compared to Peavy, it still is 7 mil while Peavy is making, what, 9 mil this year? Long term though, yes youre right it is saving them significant money. I'd prefer to keep Lee, too, if possible. But I'd be much more willing to part with him than Harden. (Although Lee has a NTC and I'm not quite sure he'd be happy to waive it.) Good point about Lee's NTC. From a competitive standpoint, the Angels are attractive, since they are the heavy favorites to win their division. And Southern California is considered to be a relatively attractive region by many ball players. I really don't know what Lee would think about this, though.

Agree on Zambrano and Soto, but I'd trade Harden to get Peavy. I guess our experience with Prior and Wood has left me less willing than most to pin our hopes on injury-prone SPs. Plus Harden is signed thru 2009 only right now. I wouldn't include Aramis in a trade for Peavy.

The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison. San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us. The Peavy situation is very much like the Santana situation. They are both situations where the player's current club can't afford to keep him. The fact that Peavy has already signed an unaffordable contract, while Santana was simply on the verge of doing so, is pretty irrelevant. Furthermore in both situations, the player had leverage to limit the teams he could be traded to, and that leverage worked to suppress the asking price. Very similar situations, actually. Not at all. Santana was not on the verge of signing an unaffordable contract with the Twins. He was on the verge of walking. The Twins were looking at 2 draft picks. Anything above that was an improvement. They blew it by not taking the Yankees' offer before it was withdrawn. Of course, it could be argued that the Yankees blew it by withdrawing the offer. While the Padres would like to move Peavy, they are not nearly in the same position as the Twins were, and their dealings with both the Cubs and Braves have shown that. Yes, Peavy's no trade clause is a hindrance for them, and could help us get Peavy for a good price if we take advantage, but the Padres will not accept miscellaneous filler for him. I'd hate to lose out to the Braves or perhaps a team like the Dodgers while we sit back thinking that the Padres are more desperate than they really are. Heck, I wouldn't put it past the Yankees to dangle so many dollars in front of Peavy's face to get him to waive his no trade clause if they don't land Sabathia. We are talking about one of the top aces in the game and we want to talk about a package of a prospect third baseman (albeit a very good one), spot starters,and utility infielders. Yet many fans here seem to think it is "absurd" to offer even one starting player. My goodness. One poster referred to Peavy as a "luxury." Well, yeah, if you consider having the most dominant staff in the game and winning the pennant a "luxury." What player other than Peavy that is available to the Cubs right now is more likely than Peavy to put us over the top? Would we be more likely to be able to sign or trade for a first baseman that comes reasonably close to Lee or finding a SP like Peavy? We all know the answer. If Lee can get a trade done through a third team and Vitters can't, the question becomes, "Do we keep Lee and walk away from the opportunity to land Peavy?"

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves. From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think? If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done. Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd.Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana. I agree that some of this discussion is getting absurd. As much as we would all like to acquire Peavy, he is a luxury and not a necessity. If we're talking about trading Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. that's one thing, but if you're talking about downgrading 2 positions ( from Edmonds/Johnson in CF to Willits/Johnson and from Lee to DeRosa/Hoffpauir at 1B) that's something else. The centerfield situation has nothing to do with this discussion. Edmonds is totally separate and unrelated to any Peavy trade. The Padres have turned us down on Vitters, Cedeno, Marshall, Pie, etc. If we want Peavy, we have to look at something else. If Peavy is, as you say, only a luxury unworthy of trading a starting player for, fine, but we really shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that the Padres agree.

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves. From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think? If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done. Unloading Lee and Harden to get Peavy and Morales is absurd. Let's put this into perspective - the Mets gave up Carlos Gomez, Phil Humber, Kevin Mulvey, and Deolis Guerra for Santana. The Peavy situation is nothing like the Santana situation. Santana was signed thru only last year and the Twins were not going to resign him. Peavy is signed thru 2012, with team option for 2013. No comparison. San Diego has turned us down on our offers and it is clear that we aren't getting Peavy without giving up something. If that means we forget Peavy and move on, fine, but if we do still want Peavy, we need to face the fact that its going to cost us.

Peavy is signed thru 2012 at 14.5m, 15m, 16m, 17m, with a club option for 22m in 2013. Harden's 7m is nowhere near that expensive. All 5 players SD would get in this deal total less than $9m, a big savings from $14.5m for just one player. Harden does, however, give them reasonably fair talent return for Peavy. This is not a pure salary dump, the Padres need a decent return, or the Peavy trade would have already been made to either us or the Braves. From our perspective, Harden is signed only thru 2009, whereas Peavy is locked up 4 or 5 more years. How can you value 1 year of Harden as being equal to 4-5 years of Peavy? We also are not giving up nearly all of our prospects as you claim. Oh wait, I see you have edited that. Glad to see that you recognize that we are not giving up a lot of prospects in this proposal. The issue is trying to trade for Peavy. San Diego has passed on our efforts to get him for Vitters and the usual suspects. We have to give up something substantial to get a guy like Peavy, don't you think? If you want to just pass on the Peavy idea rather than consider trading players like Lee and/or Harden, OK, but I think we need to face the fact that we aren't going to get a Peavy if we are unwilling to trade a big chip or 2. If you think San Diego would do the deal with Marshall and/or Wells substituted for Harden, great, lets try it. I just doubt if that would get it done.

I don't think the Angels have enough that they are willing to part with to trade for Peavy. A 3-way with the Cubs gives the Padres a better chance of getting what they want for Peavy. Maybe something like: Cubs get: Peavy, Kendry Morales Angels get: Lee Padres get: Pie, Harden, Hill, Nick Adenhart, Dustin Moseley This seems to meet the needs of all 3 teams. The Angels get their big bat at 1B without breaking the bank for Teixeira. The Padres have shown interest in Pie in the past and get 4 young SPs. This is a very strong 5-for-1 deal for Peavy for San Diego. Perhaps extending Harden can be a condition of the deal. Morales is a switch hitter, which helps address our lineup problems vs. RHP. This gets us Peavy and still leaves the Cubs with some decent trading chips in Vitters, Marshall, Cedeno, and Marquis to address RF/2B.

Everything I read sounds like the Padres want young pitching. Possibly the Marlins. It won't be the Royals because Greinke is unavailable and if he was he would cost (in players) almost as much as Peavy. I'm not sure what we could offer the Rays for young pitching. Minnesota's young pitching would cost too much (in players). I offered a trade suggestion at OH: Marquis + Vitters + Wells for Scott and 2 of Mikolo/Olsen/Tillman/Arrieta. Cubs flip the 2 young pitchers with Pie, Marshall, and Hart for Peavy. Cubs end up with Scott and Peavy. Possibly we could get Cedeno (to Padres) and Greene (to the O's) involved. More likely, The Cubs are sending Marquis as part of the deal and Towers found a team that will give him some very young arms for him. That team may very well be the O's though not for any of the players mentioned. If Towers got Pie, Marshall, Hart, Marquis and Vitters for Peavy and then flipped Marquis to someone for 2 players that were currently in Low A that would be a respectable deal, particularly since he has only one bidder and must make the deal. From what I've read, the Padres want young ML-ready pitching, so they wouldn't want Low A ball pitchers and I doubt they want the hassle of trading Marquis. I'm not sure the O's will do that, but I do know that they drool over Vitters, that they have a ton of young pitching, and they can use a veteran innings-eater like Marquis. Scott has no long-term future with the O's. The O's might really get involved if we added Cedeno (to the Padres) and Greene (to the O's) because they need a SS bad. I'm not seeing why either San Diego or Baltimore would consider this one. We've pretty much offered all you are talking about giving up here for Peavy alone, and it wouldn't fly. Baltimore isn't likely to trade either Tillman or Arrieta. They are extremely high on both of them. Additionally, they turned down San Diego's offer of Greene for Olson straight up, so they aren't really looking to move him, either. Getting Marquis doesn't add much for Baltimore, given his salary. Wells is pretty much irrelevant. They seem to be giving Scott away for nothing the way you have it. You may be on to something with trying to work a three-way with these three teams, but the proposal you suggest just doesn't seem realistic to me. Maybe if we forget about trying to get Scott out of the deal, we would have a better chance of finding a good trade for all three teams that brings us Peavy. Or maybe Baltimore just isn't the third team that can make a deal for Peavy work.