I do love the undiclosed sources tit for tat that we get this time of year. It seems like so many people hang on the latest rumor from the nether regions of the internets. I can never tell if, on the third consecutive day, when yet another story is published by yet another news outlet that confirms the original piece, that third story is just an echo of the first story from a publication that doesn't want to be left out of the rat-race. Such seems to be the case with the Jake Peavy story.
Dave O'Brien wrote about it, so Buster Olney wrote about it, which prompted some New York papers to write about it, which prompts everyone else to chime in on the subject; things like this:
Major League sources told MLB.com that Peavy is strongly believed to be drawing the most interest from the Dodgers and the Braves, and that a deal could be completed in the very near future, possibly in the next week.
How vague is that? "Sources" told us it is "strongly" "believed" and that a deal "could" be "possibly" next week. The beat writers certainly have their thesauruses working overtime this time of year.
I'll admit to be one of those who has a tendency to hang on the edge waiting for the next rumor to filter through the wire, but I think it's important to step back and not get tunnel vision with this or any rumored trade.
In the end it all comes down to money, and just as Ken Rosenthal stated today on BDD Live, "it's all about the financial incentive" and that all teams are in play. When a player says he will only go to a particular list of teams, he's not thinking ahead to the moment where a team outside that list has the opportunity to sweeten his contract. So Peavy won't go to the Yankees or the Mets, how about four million more dollars a year, will that change his mind?
Rosenthal, like many people around baseball, believes that the Braves are the frontrunner. Rosenthal lists the Braves, Cubs, and Yankees in that order, and says not to rule out the Red Sox, who are no doubt preoccupied right now.
Will a trade happen fast? I think so, but the Padres have to get exactly what they desire in return.
Are the Braves the front runner? At this point I'd have to say, yes, they've shown a willingness to trade top prospects in the past and they seem to match up well with the Padres rumored needs.
I really don't think the above line of thinking has changed in the past week and I don't see it changing in the coming week or two, so I for one am not going to get too excited about the latest "rumor." (Well, yes, I probably will, and I'll probably post it here... but dammit I'll put it in perspective!)
0 recs | 40 comments
I’m not so worried about the Yankees. Peavy has a no trade and has made it clear he prefers to remain in the NL.
dwbrave - October 18, 2008
did… you… read… what… I… wrote… ???
gondeee - October 18, 2008
“Major League sources told MLB.com that Peavy is strongly believed to be drawing the most interest from the Dodgers and the Braves, and that a deal could be completed in the very near future, possibly in the next week.”
Translated:
I was too lazy to talk to anybody (or nobody would return my call) but another beat writer for MLB.com wrote this and with my boss screaming at me to write something about Peavy I need filler for my article. So I’ll just twist their words around a bit and add a phony deadline. It’s OK, I’ll put some coulds and possiblies in front of it so it won’t be a lie. There, perfect.
scstrato - October 18, 2008
give it a rest
Accusing real journalists of the same kind of equivocation you live off of:
“as they reportedly have”
“the Yankees getting involved is the reported price for Peavy”
“then they certainly seem well positioned”
“it may lead them to believe”
“may cause the trade market for Peavy to shrink”
is laughable.
You know, at least the people you mention have real sources, “apparently” “a” better “understanding” of “words” “that” require “a” “thesaurus,” and “quotation” marks, as well as interview skills that trump your pathetic fanboy style and post-secondary education level writing abilities.
Give it a rest.
son.of.sourman - October 19, 2008
Boo. Boo to everything you are.
cbwilk - October 19, 2008
Take that shit some where else man.
RainDelay - October 19, 2008
I hate to defend him, but...
I will first cede some ground in that accusing him of “pathetic fanboy style and post-seconday education level writing abilities” is a wee bit much.
That being said…
There isn’t a lot of hard reporting involved.
I know, I know, it’s just a blog, and blogs are just silly things you can just fuck around on and then piss away. If you take the time to write a post about how terrible blind speculation is, one should take extra care not to blindly speculate.
This could have been a perfectly good post mocking people desperately clinging to print journalism jobs by filling column inches every day just trying not to get shitcanned in favor of some hack with a laptop and a buddy in the clubhouse or Frank Wren’s favorite restaurant. But then he went all speculator on us, and the wheels fall off.
Just sayin’.
mburris1 - October 19, 2008
Very few people here I completely ignore, but
you are now among those few. I’m sure that doesn’t hurt your feelings in the least, so I’ll leave it at that.
So long, sourman.
secondbass - October 19, 2008
Again, I’m not sure you really read what I wrote. Yes, I was critical of the MLB writer for adding even more vaguery to an already vague rumor, but I certainly didn’t indicate that my shit smells sweeter. This was a post about stepping back from the day to day rumor mill for a minute and trying to see the bigger picture. Don’t use this website as a Petri dish for your Canadian Psych experiments.
gondeee - October 19, 2008
"Real Journalists"?
That’s priceless. For the most part these people we’re complaining about are nothing more than pawns who are asked to write for no other intent than to make money for the organizations they work for. Their superiors want to either sell publications, attract advertising or internet traffic. They could give a damn about the content of their articles and it shows, consistently (ie, Mark Bowman calling Jordan Schafer a “pitching” prospect). Journalism is yet another industry that sold out long ago, I don’t believe there is such thing as a “real journalist” anymore. If there is, they sure are damned hard to find.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
here’s a REAL tidbit that may be USEFUL
this seems to indicate lillibridge would probably be involved and schafer/heyward could be out.
bigjoe - October 19, 2008
If the quote is accurate then I went venture a guess that KJ would have to be involved. I just don’t see Lilli as an enticing piece.
Pure speculation, but (based on Towers comments) I would hope a KJ, Hanson plus one of our strong lefties is what he’s looking for. But, like Gondee said, then the bidding war begins and I fear we’d have to add a few pieces to that puzzle.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
Headline Rumors I'd Love to Read
“Padres Demand Thorman, Parr in Peavy Package”
“Omitting Chuck James Is Deal Breaker for Padres”
“Friars Want CF Anderson Tucked in Peavy Deal”
JimK - October 19, 2008
haha
i had a good chuckle
brndn - October 19, 2008
I still haven’t heard from the Pro-Peavy bandwagon how he makes us a championship team. We were an under .500 team last year with Hudson and Tex. Now those 2 huge pieces will be missing next year, but will be replaced by Peavy. Suddenly people feel that puts us over the edge!?!? Even if we were to sign Burrell or Dunn, which I feel is unlikely, that will at best make us comparable to last year. I don’t think Burrell or Dunn are as good of hitters (let’s not talk about fielding) as Tex. Can someone please explain the rationale here to me?
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
for me, this deal would be more for 2010 than for 2009, i think we will be better in 09, if only for the fact that Francoeur cant possibly be that bad. our young players should be better ,theres no way we have as many injuries. But all in all the deal would give us a rotation in 2010 of Hudson, Peavy, JJ, then insert two other guys, possibly rohrbough and hanson. thats a pretty stacked rotation in my estimation. remember we are getting Peavy for one year its four years.
it clearly doesn make us a championship team in 2009, but it does make our team better, and I think Hudson hurt his elbow much earlier in the season then when he went on the DL, he did not look like his normal self for much of the year. Of course I have no basis for this but im not a journalist so i can make up w.e i want.
I cannot say im a fan of a deal for peavy until we find out what we are giving up to get him, if its schafer hanson and heyward, im obviously not a big fan of the trade. if its one of those guys and some other talent, then id be for it, possibly.
also, u are comparing peavy to hudson, thinking they are the same, I don’t think they are the same pitcher, I think Peavy is much better. He is also a differnt kind of a pitcher. He is the type of pitcher u need in the playoffs, a power pitcher, which the braves havent had (outside of smoltz) for a really long time. this isnt to slight Hudson he is a very good pitcher, i place him as a 1a (not quite an ace but the rotational nbr 1) or a really high nbr 2 pitcher. But i think Peavy can be an ace.
Swo12bv - October 19, 2008
I agree with most of what you say. I want to see what we give up for Peavy before making a final determination if it’s a good deal for us or not. Pleae keep in mind that Peavy pitches in the most pitcher friendly park in the majors. His numbers may be a little skewed because of that.
2008 ERA W L G GS CG IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG
Home 1.75 5 5 14 14 1 98.0 71 19 19 4 24 99 .205
Away 4.28 5 6 13 13 0 75.2 75 38 36 13 35 67 .258
If those numbers don’t scare you, factor in he’s had elbow problems last year. I would say the untouchables for me in a trade are: entire ML infield and JJ. Prospects:Heyward, Hanson, Freeman and Schafer. I think a deal can be achieved leaving those mentioned out. I shiver to think of the proposed deal that includes Escobar and us getting Greene. Do we really need another guy with a career .300 OBP?
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
I'm going to try a different tact here
First, let’s put the past behind us. I stand firm that the information you are looking for has been posted repeatedly, but regardless here goes. Second, just a couple of minor issues with your statement.
1. I personally have never said Peavy alone makes us a championship team. I don’t remember anyone else saying this either, but that point is moot.
2. Yes we were a sub .500 win team with Tex and Huddy, but I take it your blaming them when I believe the facts to be different. It doesn’t matter how good two stars players are if the rest of the team behind them are all on the DL.
So, why is it a good idea to trade for Peavy? My take is this, as Swo12bv has just pointed out … we would be trading for a staff Ace (a real power pitching Ace). He doesn’t make us a championship team in 2009 alone, we’d need to sign at least 2 FA’s to accomplish that. But, even without the 2 FA’s, he does make our team better in 2009 and the fact we would get him for at least 4 years is icing on the cake to me. Why I think we should trade our prospects (at least some of them)? Because I firmly believe, no matter how high their upside, that it will take at least 2 to 3 years of MLB service before Hanson, Schafer and Heyward start performing a league average or slightly better. Now is it possible that one or more of them will come into the league and make a ryan braun or francisco liriano type impact, sure but it’s highly unlikely. So I believe keeping the prospects and waiting on them to perform will require at least 4 or 5 years of patience and I feel that with our draft pick protected (meaning its a really good time to sign free agents) we should do everything we can to sign as many FA’s as possible (good signings, not exhorbitant irresponsible ones) and try to trade for Peavy. That theoretically could make us a very competitive team in 2009.
Why Dunn or Burrell? Some people don’t like strikeouts, understandable. But they’re is a good argument against ignoring K’s altogether, which I won’t go into here. The bottom line with these two is they get on base at close to a 40% rate and they hit with good power. These two categories leads to good runs scored and rbi numbers, scoring more runs than your opponent leads to wins. Now I like Dunn as much as the next guy, but I honestly believe Burrell would be a better signing. Dunn is probably a better player but I just feel with as much LH starting pitching as there is in the NL East, it makes more sense to sign a lefty masher.
I understand your argument about our prospects having very high ceilings, I like them alot too. But my point is they are a long way off from becoming the next big thing in Atlanta and I firmly believe we’re not that far off from being a competitive team.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
you cant just compare Hudson/Tex and Peavy/Burrell. Our two best relivers were out almost all year and a lot of others were injured as well. Francouer sucked, so we cant go anywhere but up from there. With everyone healthy, we would have been an over 500 team fa sho.
SayHeyWerd - October 19, 2008
Peavey is step one
The Braves have said the goal is to get two starters and a LF power bat, whether through trade or Free agency. I was once told that would only happen in fantasy land, but that’s what Wren has since come out and said, a couple of times I believe. Peavey would only be one piece of that pie.
secondbass - October 19, 2008
I said Hudson and Tex were 2 HUGE pieces to our team. Please re-read what I wrote. I wasn’t blaming them in the least. They were 2 of our most important players in the first half of the season. One was leading the team in wins and ERA and the other In RBIs. Even with both of them, we still managed to play under .500 ball. Despite the fact Hudson was not healthy, he still posted a low 3.00 ERA. That’s still typical Hudson numbers.
Now to your free agent argument. We supposedly have around $40 mill to spend. Peavy’s contract is an average of $15.5 a year. So that leaves is with $24.5 before arbitration eligible players are factored in. Let’s be conservative and say $20 mill is left next year. What 2 free agents do you propose we sign?
Now to Burrell and Dunn. I like both because I’m a fan of high OBP guys plus they can mash, but those are their only strong points. I agree that Burrell fits in better with our lineup because our lineup “as is” is too left-handed, but I do like Dunn better as he has put up better overall numbers than Burrell. Neither one would replace Tex’s presence in the lineup.
Let me finish by saying…why make a trade for an ace and give up valuable prospects if it doesn’t put us over the top or at least close to it?
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
because not all prospects pan out?
bigjoe - October 19, 2008
How about..
..the fact they’d get control of Peavy for 4 years, and I think an option for a 5th. So what you’re basically saying is, we have no hope for next year . Why not put the pieces to the puzzle together now? Again, 4 years of stellar pitching.
And wait, before you say something about elbow problems, who doesn’t? Yes there’s an injury risk, but that comes will all pitchers and it’s a take able risk. I’m not really for the Peavy signing, but I can see both the plus and minus of this type of deal.
It’s going to upgrade our rotation, now and in the future.
Of course I’m driving the sign Derek Lowe bandwagon.
RainDelay - October 19, 2008
Because we can’t sign 3 high quality free agents. Two may be pushing it but is certainly more reasonable. We have to make a trade at some point.
secondbass - October 19, 2008
BravesFan
Too many people have tried to answer your questions and at every turn you tell them they’re wrong. THAT’S YOUR PROBLEM! Grow up already. Don’t ask for someone’s opinion and then attack them when it differs from your own, it’s downright childish. You want respect, prove your points by doing research instead of regurgitating what you’ve read elsewhere.
If you don’t improve your behavior I’m going to call your mommy and tell on you.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
I’m sorry, I thought this was a blog where you can have actual discussions. I guess I was mistaken and should not dicuss my points since you don’t agree with them. And please point what I have “regurgitated”. My arguments are based on facts and I base my opinions on those facts.
In additon, I’ve not told anyone on this board they’re wrong on their opinion. You seem to have a personal issue with me. That’s fine. I would rather stick to the discussion at hand, which I feel strongly about.
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
A discussion, or debate is probably a better word, is two or more people sharing opinions with facts to back up their claims. What you are doing (at least in my eyes) is taking hypotheses from different websites related to baseball and calling them facts. Further you twist their words to make your argument/point.
Case in point, your posting the details from the Dave Cameron article on the FanGraphs site (in another posting, not here) that did nothing more than question Peavy’s statistics this year. You used that article to insinuate that Peavy is no longer an elite pitcher.
Another point:
“We were an under .500 team last year with Hudson and Tex. Now those 2 huge pieces will be missing next year, but will be replaced by Peavy. Suddenly people feel that puts us over the edge!?!?” This is from your posting above. In all the discussions I can remember, almost everyone who condoned trading for Peavy also said he was ONE piece of the puzzle and wouldn’t put us over the top. Yet, instead of going back and checking your facts you do your spin job and voila!
More:
“I want to know who will we be adding along with Peavy to really make a difference. So far I’ve heard Khalil Greene and his 6.5 mill salary next year and horrible offense. So from what I’m hearing, we’re trading for Peavy not for 09, but for the future?” No less than four posters above you (and all were posted before this response) have said that Peavy is not the only piece we need. NO ONE said that Greene was piece number 2 but you’ve once again twisted what you read. Even you listed Dunn and Burrell as potential FA targets, yet there’s no mention of them in your question.
So where are these facts you mention?
Last point:
TradeAndrum posted “And the bullpen should be better.”. Your retort “Before anyone starts with our best guys in the bullpen were injured last year. I want to remind you that up until the all star break, our entire staff had the 2nd lowest ERA in the NL. Our bullpen ERA was one of the best in NL as well until the wheels fell off.”. Here you insinuate that TA iss wrong and that our bullpen doesn’t need to be better, but the fact is (as you mentioned yourself) the wheels did fall off late. We blew a ton of leads (not just saves) and no matter what our bullpens final numbers were, their performance in the latter half of the season was terrible. A half year of good performance does not indicate a good bullpen overall. Did you come out and directly say TA was wrong, no – i’ll give you that. But your statements insinuate otherwise.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
Peavy’s alarming home and away splits for 2008, which I posted earlier, are FACTS. Peavy had elbow problems last season and was on the DL from May 21 to June 12 is a FACT We have around 40 million to spend next season and adding Peavy and Greene salaries of over $20 million to the payroll limits who we can sign as a free agent or trade for is a FACT. If Greene is in the trade, whether you like it or not, he WILL be piece # 2. Our bullpen had one of the best ERAs in the NL before the All-Star break and we were still under .500. That’s a FACT. With a healthy Soriano and Moylan coming back, it should help stabilize our bullpen for the entire year, but bullpens are never a sure thing. Ask the Mets.
Now if you would rather have discussions on writer’s “typos” in their articles on MLB.com, that’s another story. I don’t think that topic would generate that much interest. Oh you already posted that? lol I for one think discussions on typos are quite enthralling.(saracasm) Perhaps we can have an entire blog site just on typos. I heard ESPN.com may have a piece on writer typos in the future. You should look out for it. It may interest you.
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
There you have it ...
Someone proves you wrong and you attack them. Nice.
I do appreciate that you finally used facts, but don’t pretend that those supported your arguments. Meaning:
- Jake Peavy had poor home/away splits and was injured (does not support) Peavy is not worth 4 or 5 prospects because he’s injury prone and had poor home/away splits this year.
And just for the record, calling Schafer a “pitching” prospect isn’t a typo. It’s a MAJOR error considering the writers only job is to cover the Braves.
scstrato - October 19, 2008
I don’t see how you proved me wrong. Please elaborate.
BravesFan - October 20, 2008
Peavy alone doesn’t put us over the top for ‘09, but Peavy + Lowe/Burnett + Anyone not named Matt Diaz in LF might. We’d still have the money even if we assume Khalil Greene’s salary.
Anyone follow Greene? I don’t like his numbers, but he’s better than Lillibridge I suppose. I don’t like the Escobar + Hanson rumors that have been flying around. I only hope Schafer or Gorkys aren’t part of that deal as well.
TradeAndruw - October 19, 2008
greene is one of the 2 worst starters from the 2002 first round. guess who the other one is
bigjoe - October 19, 2008
Frenchy hahahahaha
jjcollins - October 19, 2008
Greene is a substantial step down from Escobar. Especially since we’d be looking for a new shortstop next winter. If we could get Peavy for Escobar and Hanson, I’d be very tempted, but that’s only because I have faith in Lillibridge to play well next year. I’d struggle to add much more to the deal besides low level players.
17843 - October 19, 2008
AND
We had sooo much bad luck his year. And the bullpen should be better. And the 1-run games! That number has to come back down to earth.
TradeAndruw - October 19, 2008
Before anyone starts with our best guys in the bullpen were injured last year. I want to remind you that up until the all star break, our entire staff had the 2nd lowest ERA in the NL. Our bullpen ERA was one of the best in NL as well until the wheels fell off. I want to know who will we be adding along with Peavy to really make a difference. So far I’ve heard Khalil Greene and his 6.5 mill salary next year and horrible offense. So from what I’m hearing, we’re trading for Peavy not for 09, but for the future? Essentially we’re giving up prospects and paying his salary for 4 years of Peavy but will only make use of 3 of those seasons? And to who ever asked about his option year. Yes he does have an option (2013 team option I believe) for $22 mill. I seriously doubt the Braves will be picking that up.
BravesFan - October 19, 2008
theres no reason to believe we WOULDN’T pick up that option, considering that through inflation, similar pitchers will be getting that much.
bigjoe - October 19, 2008
the fact remains the parts they want are positions of depth in our system… we have 3 top tier OF prospects, and we have plenty of pitching to replenish any losses. obviously u dont want to purge the system but of the teams listed we have the most to give the Padres.
i do agree however that 22M seems steep, however i can see them taking that option, esp if peavy goes all CY Young on us and pitches lgiths out for 3 years… there are circumstances in which the option could be exercised, hwowever i beleive the buyout is only 4M, so its very likely we wouldnt pick up the option, i agree.
i agree with u on th ebullpen also, it seemed like we had some troubles with our bullpen, and we did, but the fact remains our pen was lights out in the first half for the most aprt, we blew some saves but every pen does.
Swo12bv - October 19, 2008
Wow
I was worried that we wouldn’t have many feisty discussions this offseason. So much for that!
VegasAces - October 20, 2008
Sorry ‘bout that. I get a little too fired up sometimes, especially when people intentionally pull my strings. I’ll try and control myself a little better in the future.
scstrato - October 20, 2008
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.