Jake Peavy Rumors: Monday

Get rid of the Angels. Here's what needs to happen.

Cubs receive: Jake Peavy, Brian Giles

Padres receive: Felix Pie, Ronny Cedeno, Kevin Gregg, Jason Marquis, Grant Balfour, Jason Bartlett

Rays Receive: Khalil Greene, Sean Marshall, Cla Meredith

The Cubs would pick up 3 million of Marquis' salary next year in order to help out the Pads, as well as re-sign Kerry Wood to fill in the void from Gregg leaving. I think this deal makes sense for all three teams, its a little bit out there and the contingency would be to re-sign Wood before this trade took place. What do you guys think? It takes care of our need for a right fielder and sheds enough cap space to keep Peavy and Giles on with taking 6 mill out of Marquis' contract, and we still get to keep Fontenot.

Why would the cubs trade Gregg and resign Wood now when the whole reason we traded Ceda to get Gregg was because we thought Wood would be gone Gbizle7

I don't think a 3rd team needs to even be involved for a Peavy deal, just a team willing to discuss Greene. If the Cubs want Peavy and the Padres have interest in Cedeno then I'm sure the two clubs could work something out if the Cubs were willing to eat Greene's terrible contract as part of the deal.

Since I am guessing the Cubs won't even eat Greenes contract to get Peavy, the odds of another team (especially the Rays) willing to take on his contract is not likely.

I am convinced the big thing holding up any deal for Peavy is Towers desperately wants to package Peavy with Greene and no one is interested.

Towers tried to trade for Escobar and now is rumored to be asking for Cedeno, so obviously he is looking to get rid of Greene since he is looking for a SS.

@Gbizle7, in your deal you give the Rays Marshall who they don't really need and you strap them with Greenes terrible contract all the while downgrading their defense up the middle and not adding any big change in offense except power over speed. The Rays don't need the power or the speed but they do need the defense.

Plus, Balfour was a huge part of their bullpen last year and he is also clearly a little insane making him an ideal candidate to close if Percival doesn't come back.

Considering the Rays are looking to move Sonnanstine or Jackson, its not likely they jump over a chance to add to their payroll, downgrade their defense and then have an overflow of pitchers with Marshall.

And in response to people talking about Derek Lee and his power production, what a lot of people don't know is Derek Lee had back and neck problems last season he played through and kept to himself because he is a stand up guy. I imagine his power numbers will increase this next season when he is able to rest his back and his neck, and now that his wrist is fully healed.

KangarooBoxer, I agree the Padres are looking for a deal that includes a shortstop to replace Greene. However, I don't think that Towers is dead set on packaging Greene with Peavy. Greene has had some teams asking about him and I think the Padres could get more out of him, if they were to keep him to a seperate deal.

Gbizle7, your trade proposal is so out there it almost makes sense...

I don't see Peavy going to the Cubs unless Marshall is included in the package. If Marshall is included, then that deal looks better than the Braves.

Kevin Towers has nothing better to do than to drag this out, so you can pretty much expect to see more of the same ol crap for the next couple of months.

Jportz01,

I like the way you think. U'd think we know each other or something.

Nixa37,

I agree with you, i was more thinking that the older marquis gets the more likely he is to be placed into long relief, which the Rays do need. Especially once they move Price to the rotation. What if we threw the Rays a bone and included Vitters in the deal, even though they don't need a 3B they could develop him. Just a thought.

I do like the idea of Marquis being a long relief man with some veteran leadership in the Rays pen. I also agree with moving Vitters into the deal, even though they don't need anyone at 3rd, they could try to work him in a corner outfield spot or even try him at first in the minors.

I don't see the rationale for the Rays doing that deal though. They can obviously find something more valuable to them in return of either starter than Vitters would be. Vitters is a very good prospect, but what use does a TB team that's finally competitive have for a high risk high upside prospect that's years away and plays a position where they're set for a long, long time. It just doesn't make much sense from the Rays perspective.

Nixa...

I think Vitters is high upside...but I'm not sure I would label him as high risk. Usually that applies to someone a lot "riskier" than Vitters.

I am assuming you mean because of how young he is and how far away, which is accurate...but every team in the majors has use for a guy with that kind of upside. I guarentee if he can even sniff 3rd, he would be alright in LF.

The idea I was trying to capture is that there is a very big risk that Vitters won't come that close to his projections. He isn't a big risk in the sense that he won't make the majors, but more in the sense that he is more likely to end up average or worse than similarly ranked hitting prospects. Obviously a high risk pitching prospect is always a bigger risk than a high risk hitting prospect.

I'm also not saying that the Rays wouldn't have a use for Vitters. I'm saying that they can find more useful pieces (i.e. guys who can help while they're guaranteed to be competitive) than Vitters in a deal for Jackson or Sonnanstine. I think the Rays could find a package with similar "value" to one with Vitters that fits their plan for the next 5 years much better than Vitters would.

Lee didn't have a great year...but I think you have to judge him somewhere closer to the average of his last two years, rather than just this one. His 2007 OPS+ was 131, and his OPS was .913. So he is probably around an .840 to .850 OPS player for the next two years IMO.

That puts him ahead of LaRoche.

Also, Conor Jackson had the SAME OPS as Lee this year, and a 110 compared to 131 last year. So, I think nearly every GM would take Lee there too as well.

Are any of the others on your list even close to available???

bj-you show me a list of guys with better numbers and more agreeable salaries than derrek lee, and i'll show you a list of guys that are almost certainly unavailable for trade. fielder maybe, and tex is obviously a FA. lee is a good fit for the angels and the giants and wouldn't cost too much in terms of prospects. but to say he has no value is completely wrong. i don't think lee is even on the block, but who knows

"CptTopOff, how exactly did KT withdraw an offer the Braves made? Towers turned the offer down, Wren refused to budge, free agency started, and the Braves pulled out for the time being. It seems clear neither team was all that happy with how negotiations were going, but without knowing any details its impossible to tell who is to blame. It is what it is."

Typing too fast - meant to say "rejected the offer."

Could you imagine a starting rotation of:
1.Jake Peavey
2.Carlos Zambrano
3.Ryan Dempster
4.Rich Harden
5.Ted Lilly
That's like four number ones and a number two. Come on Henry, get it done! I'm sick of all this waiting!
And just another random comment,(probably way off)is Micah Hoffpuair worth any value? I remember when D-Lee was out on rest, Micah did a good job in the three spot. Maybe we could trade him and Ronnie Cedano for that left-handed bat that happens to play Right-field instead of overspending in free-agency.

This might be out there just was thinking of this. What about this:

Cubs get Peavy (maybe Giles?)
Padres get Sonnanstine, Jackson, Cedeno, Pie
Rays get Vitters, Marquis, Marshall

Just wanted to see what you think. MHO

uww1,

I struggle to see why the Rays would even consider this deal. Vitters is a good prospect, but he really doesn't fit in with what the Rays are currently looking for. I'm sure they would take him if the Cubs were willing to let them get him cheap, but if he comes with a cost of moving Sonnanstine and Jackson for Marquis and Marshall I just don't see why the Rays would pull the trigger.

One more thing...Get rid of Marquis. Look for a competing team in need of a starter(D-backs, Phillies etc.)who both currently have only four starting pitchers.

"Could you imagine a starting rotation of:
1.Jake Peavey
2.Carlos Zambrano
3.Ryan Dempster
4.Rich Harden
5.Ted Lilly
That's like four number ones and a number two. Come on Henry, get it done! I'm sick of all this waiting!"

Don't you think you are over valuing your own players. I see 2 #1s, a 2, a 3, and a 4

Yeah, sorry when it comes to the cubs I get excited.

milehigh,

I said Garrett Olson was never a very highly regarded prospect because he never was. He never cracked BA's top 100 list or their top 5 list for the Orioles organization (didn't even make the top 10 this year). The scouting report you're giving and the numbers I'm seeing tell me Olson is a LHP with seemingly average stuff that was effective in the minors. That doesn't necessarily translate to success at the ML level, especially once scouting reports start to get out on him. Seriously, go check out Chuck James, who had a similar scouting report and similar numbers in minors. He even had some ML success unlike Olson.

Olson already has 1 year in the bigs and he struggled mightily. I'm not saying that makes him worthless or anything, but it definitely didn't help a guy who already wasn't that highly regarded.

As for Rohrbough and Locke, both are young guys with more upside than Olson. Each of them made the Braves top 10 prospect list in 2008, while a still eligible Olson didn't crack the Orioles top 10. Sickels ranks them as B and B- prospects respectively.

I don't think I ever said Locke and Rohrbough were clearly better. I said they were better, but clearly that's just my opinion. You're welcome to disagree.

olson in the o's organization...

the minor league baseball analyst report 2008 had him 7th in the organization for 08 he comes highly touted.
http://fantasysource.sportingnews.com/baseball/teams/orioles/scouting.html

Padres are not going to trade Jake Peavy and I think that he will stay as a Padres in 2009 but I think we should play trade him for top prospects!!
"CHC receive: Jake Peavy and Gary Matthews Jr.

LAA receives: Derrek Lee

SD receives: Josh Vitters, Felix Pie, Sean Marshall, Brandon Wood and relief prospect from LAA like Darren O'Day"

I like this trade but I rather have this trade
Padres get:SS:Brandon Wood (compare him to Evan Longoria but strikeout way too much like an Adam Dunn type), future ace SP:Nick Adenhart, #2 starter for the Padres Jeord Weaver, OF:Peter Bourjos
Angels get: 3B:Kevin Kouzmanoff,SP:Jake Peavy, 1B:Kyle Blanks

trust me smart guy kyle blanks is not going anywhere anytime soon. He hasn't even proven himself.

BIGPADRESFAN2009,

Darren O'Day is a side-armed relief pitcher not an OF, and I don't think the Angels are interested in Kouzmanoff cuz they already have Figgins at 3rd.

Heck how bout the twins just randomly jump in. Nick Blackburn Delmon Young Humber and swarzack for peavy. And before you say it yes i know peavy wouldn't want to go to minnesota but its an interesting thought.

NEbravesfan

I was thinking vitter also, but I was reading another rumor on a different site that didnt include vitters. So I was just speculating. I couldnt see this deal done without him.

I think that these are the players that the padres should sign at free agency:
1.SP:Brad Penny #2-4 starter
2.C:Brad Ausmus veteran help
3.2B/Utl:Felipe Lopez veteran help, 2nd base help
4.1B:anybody for veteran help like Tony Clark or Sean Casey
5.OF:Eric Hinske veteran help, #5 outfielder/infielder
6.REGGIE WILLITS

I agree with you chicub25. You dont care about where they play when they are that young. He is a good 2 or more years away from MLB ready. But he could very well play 3rd or 1st if one of blanks or headley doesnt work out. If my eyes they would be done to not take him in a deal.

trade proposal for Reggie Willits:
Padres get: OF:Reggie Willits
for
Angels get: RP:Justin Hampson

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/03/blocked-prospec.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071104/news_1s4padres.html

oh yeah Reggie Willits can steal over 40 bases or maybe more if he has more playing time

Tony Thomas had a pretty bad year, except for the playoffs, and took a step back value wise.

Man, I'm still fuming over them not offering Wood arbitration. Its frankly embarrassing.

If Peavy doesn't want to be a Brave, he seriously needs to be a man and say it himself, instead of having writers that "wonder if"! How does a Braves fan react to Towers? I'll tell you how this one reacts- If Towers is dumb enough to speculate that the Braves may not even offer Peavy a no trade clause, than he is not only unprofesional, but stupid!! Frank Wren is not Shurholtz, and this is Jake Peavy! Also, we are in no position to let a no-trade clause stop us from getting him!! If this thing gets any stranger, well than I'm gonna quit paying attention to this crap because it ain't good for the mind!

thats a long time for a PTBNL to sit in our system. I could see someone like Jackson being traded

http://orioles.scout.com/2/735614.html

"highly touted" garrett olson

http://hamptonroads.com/node/291721
highly touted garrett olson

highly touted command...
http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/teams/report/BAL/10856032

Ooops...I forgot the Padres, stupid me.

The Fathers: Mike Lemke, Ron Gant, Terry Molholland and Jeff Blauser.

roguesaw, first of all, there was no need for you to make 3 separate posts just to point out articles where Garrett Olson was called highly touted. Secondly, notice that everyone of those sources is an Orioles related source. Of course they will call one of the Orioles better pitching prospects "highly touted". That still doesn't change the fact that he never cracked a top 100 list (along the lines of what I consider highly touted) and wasn't even ranked as a top 10 prospect in the Orioles system prior to 2008 by BA.

This whole thing started over the comparison of Locke and Rohrbough to Olson. I wouldn't consider any of those 3 to have been highly touted at this point. Still, I'm sure I can find a few random articles that call them "highly touted." The internet is a big place full of people with different opinions of players and different definitions of the term "highly touted" prospect. Olson really only qualifies for a loose definition of that phrase.

I'm sure everyone else would appreciate it if you stopped trying to hijack the thread. I get it, you can use google, way to go...want a cookie or something?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. Olson didn't make BA's list of the top 10 Orioles prospects that came out prior to the start of the 2008 season. I know he was 6th in 2006 and 2007. They dropped him off the most recent list, even though he was still eligible.

then i apologize

and i made multiple posts becuase i hate long ones. eyes get sore readingthem

ba is a great source but not a begin all end all. didnt they rank todd van poppel number one once.....

if you want an interesting read check this out.. http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/at100.html

top 100 list since 90.

Far more recent version of those rankings...
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/all-time.html

No one is going to be perfect, and you'll notice they've started putting more emphasis on actual performance recently and it seems to have helped. Van Poppel was ranked #1 based on scouting reports and ~50 IP in A ball. Today, BA wouldn't have him ranked nearly as high as they did back in 91.

and nows probably a good time to note that though im an o's fan and am quite biased i dont feel olson a top 100 prospect