17 Seconds

The Dodgers would never trade Kershaw for Peavy and certainly not Kershaw + Eithier or kemp. If Khalil Greene enters the mix they could. If they dont end up over paying for Furcal, the Dodgers dont have a definite choice for short stop, and that way, they could use that money toward over paying for Manny instead. So Khalil Greene will make the Dodgers want to trade super prospect Clayton Kershaw? The Dodgers aren't trading Kershaw, and they definitely aren't trading him to a team in their own division. It's just not happening.

The Dodgers would never trade Kershaw for Peavy and certainly not Kershaw + Eithier or kemp.

So then he's going somewhere?

http://www.braves-nation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13039&page=71 By the way, the following quote came from the same guy So Sheets/Haren/Hamels are "second tier" guys and Zambrano is an elite ace? He kind of lost credibility right there. Haren/Hamels/Sheets were all filthy and top pitchers last season. I'd be thrilled if Peavy matched any of those guys

http://www.braves-nation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13039&page=71 I think Meph's head will explode if he reads that

By the way, I'd like to see Marshall end up getting a shot at starting a full year at Petco. I think he could do some really good things there.

I'd give up 19 Jeff Samardzijas for Peavy

Whaaaa? We should be thrilled if Samardzija was the centerpiece of a trade. That's robbery

Eh, sort of uncalled for. Garwilly is a long time poster here and there's no reason to doubt he heard what he did. I know it's easy to poke fun after the Roberts stuff last year, though. Haha I'm just playing....relax dudes. It wasn't meant to be a shot at that guy anyways. Perhaps the reference to my package was unneccessary though

I'm just messin around

My somewhat connected friend just texted me and told me his balls itch. Just speculation at this point though

Haha. The Mets giving Dempster a big contract sounds like an absolute disaster. let's hope that happens.

lawl

It's going to be so depressing when we whiff on Peavy and then give Dempster 60 million.

Oh god...is this actually possible? I'm finally starting to believe that there is actually a realistic chance of this happening. I don't like how they (according to Rosenthal, anyways) would rather keep Dempster and Let Wood walk. If we got Peavy I'd say Wood would be 43324x more necessary than Dempster. I'm worried about the bullpen as it is.

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all. - Pie is obviously no longer apart of this team's future plans. - Hill is obviously no longer the pitcher he once was and has already been rumored to be used in this potential deal - Marshall would be replaced with Peavy, advantage Cubs - Cedeno is battling it out with Theriot, and in all likelihood will probably be a bench player next year if Theriot is around - Ceda would be a useful piece for the Cubs in the future, but would his loss outweigh the gain of Peavy? - If Theriot goes, Cedeno probably stays and hopefully he doesn't crap it up like the last time he was given the starting job - Vitters, I would like to keep, but when will he be ready? 3 years from now? 4 years? It's still very early to determine whether or not he'll be a bust or a great signing. You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all. The idea is that trading some players now allows us to let Dempster and Wood walk. If they walk, we get 4 top picks and our farm system might not be any worse for the wear... Ik now, I'm just saying that it's not okay to overpay with guys just because they don't fit into the team's plans.

This team really is embarrassing to watch. They're much farther away than I thought. At least we have 84 mediocre guards though.

You called? Cubs sign Furcal and then trade Marshall, Veal/Hart, and Ceda to Marlins for Hermida and Olsen. Cubs trade Olsen, Pie, Theriot, and Hill to SD for Peavy. Furcal @ SS, Hermida in RF, and Peavy in the rotation. The Marlins wouldn't do that

I'm really sick of seeing this logic(and the usual accompiniment of IT'S BEEN 100 YEARS GO FOR IT ALL NOW) as if there is no limit to the amount of young players you should give up to try for it all in one season. Let's say we give up all of our best tradeable assets for Peavy. Then Soto goes down and we need a stopgap to catch the rest of the way. What are we gonna give up for that rental? James Adduci? Every player in a system has some sort of value attached to them. Every time one is given up there is an opportunity cost at stake as to what else that player could acquire now, what they could acquire later, what they could contribute now, and what they could contribute later. Throwing the kitchen sink at a team because we've got a chance at it all is a good way to guarantee that you have only a few chances to win it all. - Pie is obviously no longer apart of this team's future plans. - Hill is obviously no longer the pitcher he once was and has already been rumored to be used in this potential deal - Marshall would be replaced with Peavy, advantage Cubs - Cedeno is battling it out with Theriot, and in all likelihood will probably be a bench player next year if Theriot is around - Ceda would be a useful piece for the Cubs in the future, but would his loss outweigh the gain of Peavy? - If Theriot goes, Cedeno probably stays and hopefully he doesn't crap it up like the last time he was given the starting job - Vitters, I would like to keep, but when will he be ready? 3 years from now? 4 years? It's still very early to determine whether or not he'll be a bust or a great signing. You're not understanding. Just because those guys mught not fit into the team's plans doesn't mean they don't have value. You only have so many pieces top use for trades and you want to blow them all.

I'd be completely shocked if any of those 3 guys ended up with the Cubs, or any players of that caliber at all.

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades? I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine. I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now. Who is to say Sabathia will still be as good? Sabathia pitches 9 innings, yeah. But at what cost? High pitch counts each time out? Future arm issues? Who knows. Maybe he is a freak of nature. But the fact remains that Peavy is still an ace on almost any staff, and he will cost $8 mil (or $9, don't remember) this year, while Sabathia will cost someone $20 million. I'll still take Peavy. That gap between ability and payroll savings is too much to ignore, IMO I'm agreeing with you, and I would also rather have Peavy for all the reasons you mentioned. I'm just saying that right now Sabathia is better.

I'd rather have Peavy. We don't need another backloaded contract killing this club in the future, which a deal to Sabathia likely would be. Peavy would be cheaper, slightly younger, and arguably just as good as Sabathia would be. Plus I thought Piniella said we don't have the luxury of going balls to the wall crazy with free agents because of the ownership change in limbo and we have to fix ourselves through trades? I don't think Peavy is close to as good as Sabathia right now. I'd be worried about how Peavy would do without playing half his games in Petco. Plus he was very Kazmiresque this season with his high pitch counts causing him to leave the game early all the time. Meanwhile Sabathia is an innings eating mahcine. I agree with you that I'd probably rather have Peavy at the price each owuld cost, but I don't think there's any way you could say Peavy is as good as Sabathia right now.

If they were able to dump Marquis' salary and let Dempster walk, it wouldn't take a huge increase in payroll to get C.C., especially with the way Hendry backloads contracts. The main obstacle would be getting clearance to pay him 100-150 mil.

I can't count the sarcastic statements in this thread on two hands. Again, great post, full of substance. And where did I say anything like that? If anything I made some vague reference to HILL not adjusting to big league hitters..not vice versa. Do you really not see how the way you started this thread lead to the sarcastic reponses you've gotten? Really?

Pie/Hill/Vitters for Peavy. Too much? Probably, but I have little confidence that any of those guys will ever make us regret it.