Braves and Jake Peavy

[CBAreject]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3649201

So it looks like the Braves are talking to SD about Peavy, but they are unwilling to talk about their top prospects in discussing a deal (Hansen, Heyward, Schaffer). From the Braves perspective, you can understand. See, the team needs big help in 2 areas: outfield and starting pitching. The good news is that's where the team is best stocked with prospects. The bad news is, to get the best available starting pitcher (Peavy), it would take most of that talent.

Unwitting fans will say "Well that's just unlucky" and fail to remember what we peddled for Mark Teixeira. Not this one. I said when we made that trade that as much as I like Tex, we would be sorry we traded those prospects when the opportunity to make a deal for a stud pitcher came up. See, the reason for not trading Salty, Andrus, Harrison is not that you actually need those particular players. Rather, it's the fact that those players man spots that are hard to fill (C, SS, SP), and teams put a premium on those players in trade negotiations. That package could've landed Peavy with perhaps just one pitcher added (and he doesn't have to be our best). Since we traded what we didn't need away, we're left with the prospects we desperately DO need, and trading them all for 1 pitcher seems unpalatable.

I've been wanting to get Peavy for several years, so I think it's important we try to make a deal happen. We might have to "think outside the box" and trade guys who don't make that much sense, such as Francouer, Kelly Johnson, or Mike Gonzalez. Those guys would leave holes but they all underperform and are more replaceable than the potential of Tommy Hanson (who has a chance to be a dominant ace pitcher) or the consistency and maturity of Jair Jurrjens.

Whatever happens, we're going to have to give up something we really don't want to, and if it goes down, I encourage you all to remember this painful lesson: you don't deplete the farm for a position-player rental, especially not to *try* to make the playoffs. We did it for JD Drew and it hurt like hell, but we didn't learn.

[TroyMcClure]

I agree, CBA. I would even deal Escobar. I would have a hard time dealing Gonzales, though. Aside from his injury, the guy has been very good for us. He keeps it down and throws strikes. I'm afraid Soriano will never really put it together. What about Derek Lowe? I've heard his name a little and the price is definitely lower. He's the type of ground ball guy the Braves have traditionally liked.

[Eddielives]

I heard talk on the radio today that it may take trading Jurrjens, Schaeffer and another pitching prospect. I would love Peavy but not if it means trading Jurjens. Not because I think Jair is equal or better than Peavy but because it's a lateral move in addressing our lack of starting pitching. Hopefully they can make it happen with Schaeffer, Escobar and another mid-level prospect.

[DrReality]

They've got to make some significant moves in order to bounce back ASAP. And this guy might be someone who would help, the question is how much we would have to give up.

[Admin]

I'll tell ya this was quite a learning experience this year for me as a Yankees fan because last year we probably could have had Santana if we had given up a couple of our best prospects and I was completely against that, and still am, but none of those best prospects did anything this year and thus far it was a mistake to not trade for Santana. I think that if you can get a reasonable deal for Peavy you have to consider it since simply signing a big name FA will cost you your 1st rounder anyway.

[Swish]

I'll tell ya this was quite a learning experience this year for me as a Yankees fan because last year we probably could have had Santana if we had given up a couple of our best prospects and I was completely against that, and still am, but none of those best prospects did anything this year and thus far it was a mistake to not trade for Santana. I think that if you can get a reasonable deal for Peavy you have to consider it since simply signing a big name FA will cost you your 1st rounder anyway.

Yankees=Evil.

OK, so I really wanted a reason to use that pic again.

[frankthetank966]

The key difference to this trade and the Tex trade is that Peavy is signed long-term. He is signed until '11 and has a option for 2012.

I am all for trading Hanson because my philosophy is to deal at the position you want to upgrade and at this position its SP.

[CBAreject]

The key difference to this trade and the Tex trade is that Peavy is signed long-term. He is signed until '11 and has a option for 2012.

I am all for trading Hanson because my philosophy is to deal at the position you want to upgrade and at this position its SP.

I knew, I just KNEW, people wouldn't understand the point of my post. I just KNEW someone would think I am against trading for Peavy, that I am against trading away prospects. I thought Dolfan had misunderstood, but I let it pass. From this post, frank, it is clear that you missed my point. What can I do with you people?

THE POINT is that we traded prospects for a rental so that now we don't have them to trade for Peavy. I desperately want to trade for Peavy, but now we're in a really tough spot because we depleted the farm. I said back then that when THIS CHANCE came up, we'd wish we hadn't traded 3 of our top prospects. Now we need them to trade for Peavy. We can still trade for Peavy, but it will take prospects we are much more reluctant to give up than Salty. I still think we should do it, but that's not the point of the thread (to discuss whether or not we should trade for him).

[frosgrim]

I knew, I just KNEW, people wouldn't understand the point of my post. I just KNEW someone would think I am against trading for Peavy, that I am against trading away prospects. I thought Dolfan had misunderstood, but I let it pass. From this post, frank, it is clear that you missed my point. What can I do with you people?

THE POINT is that we traded prospects for a rental so that now we don't have them to trade for Peavy. I desperately want to trade for Peavy, but now we're in a really tough spot because we depleted the farm. I said back then that when THIS CHANCE came up, we'd wish we hadn't traded 3 of our top prospects. Now we need them to trade for Peavy. We can still trade for Peavy, but it will take prospects we are much more reluctant to give up than Salty. I still think we should do it, but that's not the point of the thread (to discuss whether or not we should trade for him).

Your point, while having some merits, also suffers from a critical point: how would anyone know that the Padres, coming off a winning season, a new ballpark, and apparently setting up for a long run at dominance would trade away a 27 year old, Cy Young pitcher? That makes no sense. The trade for Tex made sense in that Smoltz was nearing the end but was having a great season. The thinking had to be that Tex could jump start the team like McGriff. I just can't see how anyone would have such a crystal ball to know that Peavy would be available.

[frankthetank966]

Your point, while having some merits, also suffers from a critical point: how would anyone know that the Padres, coming off a winning season, a new ballpark, and apparently setting up for a long run at dominance would trade away a 27 year old, Cy Young pitcher? That makes no sense. The trade for Tex made sense in that Smoltz was nearing the end but was having a great season. The thinking had to be that Tex could jump start the team like McGriff. I just can't see how anyone would have such a crystal ball to know that Peavy would be available.

Yea there is no way people would have known Peavy would be on the block. At least with Santana (last year) there was speculation that he would be traded during the season because the Twins could not afford him.

[CBAreject]

Your point, while having some merits, also suffers from a critical point: how would anyone know that the Padres, coming off a winning season, a new ballpark, and apparently setting up for a long run at dominance would trade away a 27 year old, Cy Young pitcher? That makes no sense. The trade for Tex made sense in that Smoltz was nearing the end but was having a great season. The thinking had to be that Tex could jump start the team like McGriff. I just can't see how anyone would have such a crystal ball to know that Peavy would be available.

Wow. The point is NOT that the Braves should have known exactly Jake Peavy would become available. The point is that SOME young pitcher would likely be available in the subsequent 2 years. And if you count Johan Santana last year, that makes 2 Cy Young caliber YOUNG pitchers in 1 year's time. It takes no crystal ball to see that historically, young pitchers all-star pitchers become available on a semi-annual basis when their teams don't want to pay them. We got Hudson the same way just 3 years ago.

Here's the thing: I made this extremely CLEAR when I said "the chance to trade for a stud pitcher"--not Peavy, not Santana, "a stud pitcher". I can understand that your concrete mind cannot understand abstract ideas, but when I spell it out so clearly and you still want to fight with me, I think you're just being argumentative. Stop it.

To address your other ill-conceived point, the 2007 team was NOTHING like the 1993 team. Teixeira was great...even better than McGriff, but the 1993 team had Maddux (20 wins), Glavine (22 wins), Smoltz (17 wins), and Avery (18 wins) and one of the best Braves bullpens ever assembled. The 93 team was already good (on pace for 90 wins), but they lacked a vitally important clean-up hitter, and they were in the same division as a dominant Giants team. McGriff didn't make those Cy young winning pitchers good. He just helped turn some of the 3-2 losses into 5-3 wins. The 2007 team, by stark contrast, had an aging Smoltz and a bad Tim Hudson and an average pen. Our 3rd starter was mediocre to poor and we weren't even sure who our 4th and 5th starters were at the time of the deal. No team can win with a 4th and 5th starter who give up 6 runs in 3 innings every time out. At the time, I said our team needed Bronson Arroyo more than Tex. I was lambasted for that comment. I was 100% right, as our team was no better with an amazing Tex because we still had no starting pitching depth. We got beat 10-8 instead of 10-4. Big whoop.

[frosgrim]

A stud pitcher is not always available. To hold prospects for several years in that hope is foolish. What happens if/when one of those prospects 1) gets a major injury, 2) has an awful year, 3) gets suspended for steroids/drugs/etc, 4) or is clearly wasting in the minors (that is he's ready to play now. holding prospects for a mythical better deal usually backfires, esp w/ young pitchers.

In sum, I am not buying the argument

[jhay610]

CBA, perhaps you should take another long break from posting here, because you don't seem to be mentally prepared for the anguish and agony thrust upon you when clearly inferior arguments are proposed to counter your sprawling, flawless diatribes.

While you make some good points, it would seem that you suffer from a bad case of the @-hole. If you can't be civil with we, the intellectual peons of the world that may suffer a different perspective than yours, then maybe it's best you stay on the sidelines for a while longer.

Just a thought...Mean no harm.

Edited October 20, 2008 by jhay610

[Atlantaholic]

Your point, while having some merits, also suffers from a critical point: how would anyone know that the Padres, coming off a winning season, a new ballpark, and apparently setting up for a long run at dominance would trade away a 27 year old, Cy Young pitcher? That makes no sense. The trade for Tex made sense in that Smoltz was nearing the end but was having a great season. The thinking had to be that Tex could jump start the team like McGriff. I just can't see how anyone would have such a crystal ball to know that Peavy would be available.

Trading away prospects for a player you KNEW you would not resign, in hopes of winning a championship, was, in retrospect, and abysmal decision.

I agree with the OP. At least use your prospects to get someone YOU KNOW will be with the team for more than a year. The Braves GMing has been pretty damn terrible for a while now... no surprise our team is where they are.

[CBAreject]

A stud pitcher is not always available. To hold prospects for several years in that hope is foolish. What happens if/when one of those prospects 1) gets a major injury, 2) has an awful year, 3) gets suspended for steroids/drugs/etc, 4) or is clearly wasting in the minors (that is he's ready to play now. holding prospects for a mythical better deal usually backfires, esp w/ young pitchers.

In sum, I am not buying the argument

You make a fair point that holding prospects is somewhat risky--they may underperform or get injured, thus dashing their value. The suspension for drug argument doesn't merit consideration since it's so rare, but even if it were more common, it would effectively be lumped into the injury/underperformance argument. In short, the minor leaguers may lose value.

I agree that prospects who appear to be "wasting" in the minors should be traded, but usually a trade is forced when he runs out of options before this becomes too big a concern.

There's the good with your argument. Now the bad:

Throughout your post, however, you display a bias in your thinking that we were somehow just "holding" these prospects. On the contrary, we could easily be playing Salty at 1B and Harrison could have been called up last season to start in our rotation. We wouldn't be "holding" them. We'd be using them. They'd be playing or at the very least getting more seasoning at high levels (andrus of course wouldn't be ready).

You somehow think you can refute my argument by contradiction; see: "a stud pitcher is not always available". Next time you try that superficial tactic, double-check and see if you're even contradicting the right thing. In this case, I never said a stud pitcher is always available, so what gives? I said one becomes available on an annual or semi-annual basis. That statement you have not begun to refute.

You say there was no way to know stud pitchers would be available, but I disagree. Santana was already being talked about.

OH, and add Dan Haren to this mix. We had no shot at him because of the Tex trade.

That's 3 in one year. THREE stud pitchers in 1 year. THREE. Your case looks exceedingly weak when you consider 3 pitchers became available in 1 year, and I don't even include Sabathia since he's effectively a rental.

The point was that we traded an awful lot for an offensive rental who we never believed we could afford to resign. At the time, I said we'd regret it. We do--at least those of us who can admit that the team we love goofed up.

[CBAreject]

CBA, perhaps you should take another long break from posting here, because you don't seem to be mentally prepared for the anguish and agony thrust upon you when clearly inferior arguments are proposed to counter your sprawling, flawless diatribes.

While you make some good points, it would seem that you suffer from a bad case of the @-hole. If you can't be civil with we, the intellectual peons of the world that may suffer a different perspective than yours, then maybe it's best you stay on the sidelines for a while longer.

Just a thought...Mean no harm.

I should never wish upon you the plight of so often being right yet so infrequently understood--having eloquent, well-developed arguments met with "hell naw, cuz i sez so"--all the while knowing the complacent, thoughtless turds grin smugly believing they've "gotten you good", and hearing their similarly weak-minded comrades shout "hear, hear", not because their festering piles of verbiage even resemble arguments, but because they recognize a similarity of intellect, one with another, and they find that familiar and comforting.

[TroyMcClure]

I should never wish upon you the plight of so often being right yet so infrequently understood--having eloquent, well-developed arguments met with "hell naw, cuz i sez so"--all the while knowing the complacent, thoughtless turds grin smugly believing they've "gotten you good", and hearing their similarly weak-minded comrades shout "hear, hear", not because their festering piles of verbiage even resemble arguments, but because they recognize a similarity of intellect, one with another, and they find that familiar and comforting.

I've read the thread. Your argument is sound. Personally I'm damn glad you are back. You're a smart person and a homer to boot! I get my share of criticism, too. Who cares? People hate the messenger if they don't like or understand the message. Speaking of the message; I think that while on the whole you are right, a different pitching coach, bench coach and third base coach are bigger factors in our decline than most people think. The Braves used to get a lot out of a little. Now, it is what it is. We've lost Leo, Jimmy and Pat. Those guys were huge parts of the machine. We've lost them one by one. It's no coincidence to me that we've started to lose our identity. Just what is Braves baseball now?

[CBAreject]

I've read the thread. Your argument is sound. Personally I'm damn glad you are back. You're a smart person and a homer to boot! I get my share of criticism, too. Who cares? People hate the messenger if they don't like or understand the message. Speaking of the message; I think that while on the whole you are right, a different pitching coach, bench coach and third base coach are bigger factors in our decline than most people think. The Braves used to get a lot out of a little. Now, it is what it is. We've lost Leo, Jimmy and Pat. Those guys were huge parts of the machine. We've lost them one by one. It's no coincidence to me that we've started to lose our identity. Just what is Braves baseball now?

Glad to have one who appreciates my posts. I had a lot of hope for this offseason, but it looks like now we'll be the runt sucking hind tit on the bloated sow that is free agency. The Vasquez trade is underwhelming. If we still had Leo, Vasquez would post a 3.5 ERA and win 18 games, but under McD, he'll do something more mediocre. I guess we just have to hope that Tommy Hanson dominates like a mature Curt Shilling when he comes up by mid season. That, and Charlie Morton needs to be decent. We're really screwed for this year unless we get Peavy or Burnett, and I'm not sure we should overpay for Burnett. My hope is for 2010 when a rotation of Hanson, Hudson, Jurrjens, Vasquez, Parr/Locke/Campillo could be very solid and an outfield with Shafer and Hayward may materialize. This next season should be a real stinker if the offseason continues to go this way.