Padres start to gauge interest in Peavy
by ST on Oct 16, 2008 7:30 PM PDT
73 comments
Interesting that SD is already starting the bidding war on him. I've always like Peavy and think of him as a real front line #1 Ace. Considering that the Padres only want "at least two young pitchers in return, along with someone who can become the team's everyday center fielder sometime in the immediate to near future", which fits exactly the strength of the A's presently: depth of outfields and pitching. Would it make sense to deal for him and his salary (see below)? I wouldn't mind a deal of Eveland / Smith + Duke / Casillas + Mazarro / Gio + Sweeny / Cunningham for him. Play him until 2011/2012 (and when the newlook A's start maturing) then unload him when he gets really expensive for more picks or someone in trades. A front line rotation of:
- Peavy
- Gallagher
- Cahill
- Anderson
- Simmons / Mazarro
Espn: Padres start to gauge interest in Peavy
Peavy, 27, will make $8 million in 2009, $15 million in 2010, $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012, and he has a 2013 option for $22 million, with a $4 million buyout.
0 recs |
73 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Peavy has a full no-trade clause
what makes you think he’d want to go to the A’s?
'That's something we do...thirteen hits and not score'-Terrence Long
by DyeLongJustice on Oct 16, 2008 7:37 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
What dream makes you think that the A's would pay even half that salary
McGwire belongs in the Hall so put him there
by streetisclosedin08 on Oct 16, 2008 7:38 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy is a Hell of a pitcher
But why spend trade resources to land a SP when pitching isn’t the problem? The A’s don’t score runs, that needs to change if they want to win more games.
The monster at the end of this blog.
by grover on Oct 16, 2008 7:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it would make zero sense for the a’s to trade for peavy. next.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Oct 16, 2008 8:04 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Are the Padres selling high on Peavy?
Dave Cameron notes that he wasn’t as good this past season as in years past, and wonders whether the Padres are trying to get as much as possible before a decline sets in.
by OaklandSi on Oct 16, 2008 8:23 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
4-5 yrs ago
i seem to recall discussions/debates on peavy vs harden comparisons…their futures and possibly being eventually the best pitchers of their leagues…peavy’s mechanics were though of as violent and lead to health issues. harden with the smooth and easy delivery. we know how that turned out lol
by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 16, 2008 9:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm going with a BB guess and say no!!
Way to much salary for an a pitcher who’s health is a concern, which is why the Padres are shopping him in the first place.
I’d rather sign Bonds so he can Bat behind Crosby and we will still witness BoCro swing on that slider away….
I really would like them (A’s brass) to bring in a DH or someone who can complement Cust in the batting order. While Juan Rivera seems the likely choice among our fellow ANers and probably correct in that guess, I’d prefer Manny since this post seems to be built on more hope and dreams than anything else!
Women and children can be careless, but not men!
by MMunoz33 on Oct 16, 2008 9:18 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy's health is a concern?
The Padres are shopping him because:
The owner is cheap.
The owner has money problems.
The owner is going through a nasty divorce battle, that could result in even bigger money problems.
The FO subscribes to a low payroll model.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 17, 2008 12:23 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
That makes no sense
If they simply wanted to “be cheap,” they’d have traded him/let him walk without extending him in the first place.
The reason they’re trading him is the same reason the A’s traded Haren— trying to restock a weak farm system.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the contract they signed him to
08:$6M, 09:$8M club option ($0.5M buyout) 10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$17M, 13: $22M club option ($4M buyout).
They kept him for the 2 cheap years; now that his salary is soon to start jumping up, they want to trade him.
If they want to restock a weak farm, maybe they might stop pulling stunts like drafting Matt Bush as the #1 pick. The farm pathetic, also because they are cheap.
Cheap. Cheap ownership, and an FO that has a philosophy of cheapness.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 17, 2008 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thats what happens when you have Sandy Alderson in your organization
It starts going to shit
by pbra17 on Oct 17, 2008 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, it's only the sheerest coincidence that the "cheap years" happen to be the ones attached to the contract
that he signed before he was a free agent, when he had no leverage. It was actually their master plan all along, to sign him and then inexplicably immediately trade him away.
(Also wrong: they’re trading him before the second “cheap year”, not after it.)
I have my disagreements with how they spend their money, and notably they still pretty much refuse to go over slot, which is silly in the extreme. But the decision to trade Peavy is no more motivated by money than the Haren trade was last offseason. He’s a premium commodity on a team which does not have much use for a premium commodity because it has a ton of holes filled by awful players. Trading him will instantly jump their farm system from, eh, 20th or so to about 5th. And assuming they evaluate the players well, which by and large they do, that should be a good start to getting the team competitive again.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
What?
The cheap years AND the expensive years all belong to the SAME CONTRACT. This is the extension he signed at the end of 2007.
It’s not that uncommon for cheap teams to heavily weight the salary of the contract towards a certain point, and then trade the player when that point is imminent.The Marlins have made a habit of doing this.
Peavy is a premium commodity? Well, so is Adrian Gonzalez. Ahh, but, Gonzalez: 09:$3M, 10:$4.75M,
11:$5.5M club option (no buyout).
This is Haren’s contract at the time of the trade:
08:$4M, 09:$5.5M, 10:$6.75M club option ($0.25M buyout)
Padres. Cheap.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 18, 2008 12:09 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK, first para is wrong
The extension got tacked onto his existing contract.
Still, they are trading him away just when that contract is becoming expensive. His contract is not comparable to Haren’s.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 18, 2008 12:16 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Again, no
They are trading him away one year before he becomes expensive.
I fully expect Gonzalez to be dealt too. He’s the Swisher to Peavy’s Haren. If they can get good deals for those two they can totally restock their farm system.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 18, 2008 10:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, and if they wait till the end of 2009,
his trade value goes down as their need to trade him to save money becomes more urgent.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 19, 2008 2:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes sense to me
The Padres were expecting to be competitive and have a nice new stadium to come watch pennant races and playoff runs in. Peavy’s salary makes sense for a mid-market team competing for championships, but it’s too high for a terrible Padres team that doesn’t look like it can improve (without trading him). It’s both money and rebuilding.
Jeremy was safe. He jumped over the tag.
by mrrickyg on Oct 19, 2008 9:42 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just to answer some of the (fair) criticism of the proposal...
- yes he has a full no trade clause, but may lift it since he can 1) stay in the West Coast, 2) and knows a great revival will take place soon that he can lead
- For a #1 ace pitcher in his prime, imho his salary now is a steal (well before the last option season). Those that want CC know he will be getting at least Zito type dollars, so that’s a good comparison.
- This post isn’t a hope necessarily, nor condoning a trade, just asking for thoughts on it since it’s very rare a pitcher of his pedigree is available….yes personally, these 2-1, 1-0 snoozefests are a bore with our anemic offense, but upgrading any positions while giving up little in way of our depth is always a good thing imho.
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us."
by ST on Oct 16, 2008 9:45 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Another good reason to trade for a top pitcher
is that you can more easily turn around and trade a top pitcher for the hitting you need. So if the trade and money were right, it’s not a bad idea. But I don’t think the A’s want to pay any pitcher that much money, because pitchers are notorious for breaking down.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 16, 2008 10:03 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is true with any top player.
Let’s get one. I’m all for Curtis Granderson or Miguel Cabrera.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 16, 2008 10:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not happening
Peavy will command a bigger package than Dan Haren did. My brain hurts even thinking about how many top prospects the A’s would have to give up in that putative deal.
The A’s aren’t close to positioned to give up that kind of talent haul.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 16, 2008 10:20 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Who's better equipped to give up prospects than the A's?
I’m intrigued by that Granderson deal you proposed.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 16, 2008 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure the A's can give up tons of prospects for a few veterans
if they want to create a bad team that peaks at 80 wins for the next five years.
You have to actually be in a position to make use of the players you trade for. Right now Oakland is not in that position. Trading prospects will create more holes than it fills. And if you stick strictly to dealing supernumerary guys to solve that issue, you aren’t going to bring back anything but roster filler and short-term solutions.
I love Granderson but I’m not at all convinced that the deal I laid out makes the A’s a better franchise. It was more a mental exercise than a serious suggestion.
And to answer your first question: At LEAST Boston, Tampa Bay, Philadelphia, Texas, Cleveland, and there are probably more.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 16, 2008 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Calling Granderson a "veteran" isn't doing him justice. He's a superstar at a premium
defensive position signed to a reasonable long term deal. That’s not that different than a pre-FA player, except at a higher annual cost.
The A’s do have more quantity than quality and I am in favor of turning that quantity into quality upgrades wherever feasible. Whether the specifics of your proposal were favorable or not is less important than the strategy of turning many useful pieces into a couple of impact players.
To further illustrate the point that the forest is more important than the trees I won’t point out that AT LEAST one the teams you listed above does not fit the criterion specified.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 3:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
There will hopefully come a time when trading quantity for quality makes sense
That time is not now.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 8:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hopefully that time will come before the prospects turn to pumpkins
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 6:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The A's don't have enough trade goods to fill out a good MLB team
so if the prospects “turn to pumpkins”, they’re screwed either way.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 6:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not if you trade pre-pumpkin prospects for an impact player
and then trade that player for more prospects!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 9:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
A's have tons of depth
to get peavy or any player if they choose…hopefully a position player…they could trade one of the OF’s, plus 2 non Cahill/Anderson pitchers and it would barely put a dent in the system
by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 16, 2008 10:24 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
You'd do Sweeney, Gio and Mazzaro for something?
Who could you get for that? Maybe Rasmus? Adrian Gonzalez? Fielder? Not enough for Beltran, Zimmerman, Granderson or Cabrera.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 16, 2008 11:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not enough
Just playing along with this hypothetical Peavy to the A’s scenario I don’t see anyway a deal gets done without one of or both Anderson and Cahill involved.
Maybe something like Simmons, Gallagher, C-Gon, Carter and Carignan is enough but you’ve got to weigh it against what LA/ATL are going to be offering – not to mention most reports say Peavy is inclined to stay in the NL.
by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 17, 2008 7:59 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
instead of going after peavy, the a's should just trade 6 or so prospects for dan haren.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Oct 17, 2008 2:56 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
Any ideas on who?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 3:08 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
that was sarcasm
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
by xbhaskarx on Oct 17, 2008 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
So you weren't being serious?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 6:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe it was seriouscasm
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 17, 2008 6:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have a serious chasm in my head
Wait…that didn’t come out right
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 17, 2008 9:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Makes about as much sense
Seriously though – has anyone else considered that re-acquiring Nick Swisher to fill the power void actually makes some degree of sense?
Think about it: his value is down; he had a crappy season, but most of his suckiness can be chalked up to bad luck; the Sox have a logjam at OF/1B and Swish seemed to be the odd-man out in the PS; he has a favorable contract; and Kenny Williams has demonstrated a willingness to trade guys away then re-acquire them (Gio), so why not acquire guys then trade them away again?
Course we have quite the logjam in the OF too, so the logistics there would need to be addressed.
by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 17, 2008 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know who else has a logjam at 1B/OF?
Oh, yeah, you said it at the end. Nevermind.
by mikev on Oct 17, 2008 9:56 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I miss Swish
I need a drink. Where’s my whiskey…
Ryan Sweeney: I probably irrationally embraced him before you did.
by Joey C. on Oct 20, 2008 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
If Peavy has an effect on what the A's do
it will be in the form of the A’s thinking about trading Justin Duchscherer, not acquiring another pitcher.
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Oct 17, 2008 3:03 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
it wil be on what the A's believe they can get for Duchscherer
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Oct 17, 2008 3:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
and right now it's probably not much
I think he’ll have to pitch well and stay healthy for a while in order for his trade value to improve
by OaklandSi on Oct 17, 2008 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Correct
And the A’s will have an effect on the Peavy deal – SD will demand a package at least equivalent in value to what the A’s received from AZ.
by CapgrasDelusion on Oct 17, 2008 8:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
It'd be real surprising if they'd even consider dealing Peavy for a deal
not including Cahill or Anderson. Even if they wanted a premier centerfielder, the deal would most likely be around one of those two.
by NateHST on Oct 17, 2008 10:10 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Padres would probably ask for a deal looking like;
Cahill, Gonzalez, Mazzaro, Cardenas, Leon
facepalm.jpg
by Zonis on Oct 17, 2008 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree
and anyone who thinks dealing that would not cripple the team going forward is kidding themselves.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 17, 2008 3:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
I would think Billy would have zero interest in Peavy and most certainly would not deal Cahill and Carlos.
I can see him adding a hitter or two but NO pitching.
May The Red Sox and all their fans get food poisoning and all collectively crap their pants
by Trainman on Oct 17, 2008 8:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think that's a little much
Even as the Padres asking point that’s a crazy amount of talent. Look at the Johan deal, the Haren deal, the Bedard deal, and the Harden deal. Peavy is of course better than all but Santana and signed for longer than all as well. But c’mon.
The best two deals of the bunch were Bedard’s and Haren’s. Haren’s deal was built around depth rather than quality. CarGo and Anderson were both top 35 prospects but Cunningham and Carter were at the tail end of most top 100s. Smith and Eveland were just depth; we’re lucky both have pitched reasonably well. Bedard’s was built around quality. Adam Jones was the best “prospect” dealt in any of the deals I mentioned (and he wasn’t top 15-20 in baseball like Anderson/Cahill) and Tillman was a solid Brett Anderson-type second piece. Sherrill was solid depth. Mickolio and Tony Butler were lottery tickets.
So let’s say Peavy could get a better deal: a mix of the Haren and Bedard deals. Both deals had two good to very good prospects: Gio and CarGo. Both had depth but the Bedard’s deal had better depth: Duke. Add in a couple of no names and that’s about the same as the Bedard deal. Throw in another solid two prospects: Mazzaro and Donaldson. Gio, CarGo, Duke, Mazzaro, and Donaldson is a very, very solid deal for the Padres compared to the Bedard and Haren deals. And neither the O’s nor A’s are crying about those deals.
Would I do that deal for the A’s for Peavy? No. If it was a star position player, I might though (of course dependiong a lot on details). In the end, I see Peavy traded for a lot less than that: JoJo Reyes, Jason Heyward, and Yunel Escobar for Khalil and Peavy is my prediction.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 18, 2008 3:24 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adam Jones wasn't top 15-20 in baseball?
Who was making the list?
I think you’re confusing the fact that he wasn’t prospect eligible any longer last season with where he would have ranked. In my opinion, if he was eligible, he’d probably have been in the top 10, maybe in the top 5.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 19, 2008 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're right
I kinda wanted my argument to look a little better and got too into it. Looking back on it, I immediately knew it was wrong. Was waiting for someone to call me on it.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
by vignette17 on Oct 19, 2008 1:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jake Peavy to the A's would be awesome!
But like many have already pointed out, I think the A’s have set the bar on a proven frontline starter/for multiple prospects trade scenario. Now that the rest of MLB owners and GM’s saw what the A’s got for Dan Haren, something similar would have to come back to the padres, maybe a little less due to Peavy’s sizable payrate after next year. Still, if there some miraculous way to acquire him without seriously damaging the recently restocked farm system, then you at leasy have to think about it…..right?
by mrod on Oct 18, 2008 2:01 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
forget peavy
time to buy into their other players
would any of kouz/headley/antonelli be available?
beane has liked khalil green in the past, but he comes with a 6.5mill price tag, 1 yr deal. would going from sd to oakland do anything for his hitting?
by Asfan4ever723 on Oct 18, 2008 3:12 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Headley is possible, though maybe unlikely,
while Kouzmanoff is very doable, though maybe not desirable.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 18, 2008 3:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby for Kouzmanoff! No take backs!
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 18, 2008 4:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd definitely do Crosby for Greene.
Unfortunately, I doubt that the Padres are that desperate to clear money, that a $1M savings would tempt them.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 19, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Let's throw in money. Would $100 billion be enough?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 20, 2008 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Greene was a decent hitter, until 2008
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
by rfloh on Oct 19, 2008 2:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Crosby was a decent hitter, until 2004.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
by Nico on Oct 19, 2008 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
The other part of this is - where's the best deal for the Padres?
The Red Sox may very well be interested, and not only can they sign Peavy for what he wants, they can offer Coco Crisp + 2 talented arms from the farm system.
Even if it made sense for the A’s, I don’t think they have a package that’s as attractive. We don’t really have a good major league center fielder, and, while I like our farm arms, I think the Red Sox can offer something more compelling and lower risk.
it is not possible to strategize while the ball is coming towards you
by eastcoasta'sfan on Oct 20, 2008 10:40 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
The Padres have no use for Coco Crisp
In the unlikely event that the Red Sox were to trade for Peavy, the package would start with Ellsbury, Buchholz and Lowrie, and go from there. I don’t think the Sox are doing that, because they can just pay for starting pitchers on the market if they need to.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 20, 2008 10:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
San diego wants a CF in the deal, right?
If I were the Pads, I’d rather have ellsbury, too, but I don’t think they’ll get that . . . and i do think Crisp is a more than adequate NL CF. Do you disagree?
it is not possible to strategize while the ball is coming towards you
by eastcoasta'sfan on Oct 20, 2008 10:59 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy is one of the best pitchers in the NL.
It’s going to take more than Coco Crisp to get him, unless it’s Crisp, Buchholz, Masterson, and Lowrie or something.
by mikev on Oct 20, 2008 11:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jody Gerut was the 2nd best CF in the NL according to Dial's OPD
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 20, 2008 3:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is San Diego going to be competitive in 2009?
2010?
If not, Crisp is utterly useless to them. And it’s highly questionable whether he’d be useful to them at all, since he’s likely to hit something like .260/.310/.340 in Petco. Rebuilding teams do not trade for league average (or worse) filler with only 2 years of contractual control remaining.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 20, 2008 11:51 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Eveland, Duke, Gio and Sweeney for Peavy?
Seems like a lot and leaves the A’s with Denorfia in CF. If the A’s had Peavy and the Padres had those guys, we’d be advocating trading Peavy for them to fill out the rotation and the CF hole.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Oct 20, 2008 3:55 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Maybe you'd be advocating trading Peavy for them...
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 20, 2008 8:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think we're short in CF..
even with Sweeny out of the picture. With PetrolCraft, Cunningham, Denorfia, “Radio” Davis, and Buck still in the mix, we have a plethora of options. If it we weren’t in such of a predicament with Chavez (back injuries) and Barton (head injuries), I’d whole heartedly condone a 3 CF outfield alignment of Buck, C-Gon, and Davis, with SpartaCust moving to full time DH (even give him a try at 1b). It’s obvious our offensive ineptitude won’t be resolve with a few minor tweaks, so why not stick to our strengths for now (pitching and defense) until future options present themselves.
After thinking about it more, with DePodesta helping over in San Diego, I don’t think the Padres will accept anything less then: Duke (interim starter), Mazarro (future starter), H-Rod (future closer), Gio Gonzalez (young talent), Sweeny (CF), and another B level prospect. But as many said already, others may be able to cough up more for him because of their needs (and pocketbooks). I know if i had Duke, I wouldn’t give him up unless the package was really outstanding (better than Haren).
"Twenty minutes," says Jack Sr. "Thank god for Billy Beane."
"any fan that wants us to do that is going to be disappointed because that just isn’t us."
by ST on Oct 20, 2008 11:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
I would have to think Simmons would be on their must-acquire list
He could put up #2 or even #1 starter numbers in that cavernous park. He compares pretty favorably to Chris Young.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
by PaulThomas on Oct 21, 2008 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
