Insider info about Peavy Trade
by TMAC85 on Oct 20, 2008 2:58 PM EDT
78 comments
My sources at the Braves tell me that the deal on the table right now is Yunel, KJ, Hanson, and Gorkys for Peavy, Green and 2 minor leaguers (Cory Luebke and another) This is just want I am told is on the table I think it would be insane to make a trade where we loose 2 every day starters when our minor leaguers are not that strong in either position. Lilli and Prado I think we can afford to loose KJ for a pitcher like Peavy but I believe Yunel for Green would be too big of a drop because Green was injured a lot this year and hits about as well as Frenchy with practically no HRs and no RBIS. I think we can't loose Yunel even if it means we get a player like Peavy. I say let Hanson pitch if that is gonna be the price for Peavy.
0 recs |
78 comments
Email
Print
Comments
For real dude. That would be an insane trade by Frank Wren, but I’m sure he would do it. Why not just trade Yunel straight up for another pitcher? He obviously has trade value and I’m sure he could net us a pretty decent SP. Its not like we are even gonna be contending next year, so why trade the entire farm system for Peavy? If this trade goes through I’m gonna LOSE IT.
by jjcollins on Oct 20, 2008 3:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ummm why wouldnt we contend next year??
by SayHeyWerd on Oct 20, 2008 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Big holes that are unlikely to be filled appropriately. I’ve elaborated elsewhere.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 8:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also
I heard that JoJo Reyes was involved in addition to the names you mentioned….
by jjcollins on Oct 20, 2008 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
SUCKS
Please tell me this doesn’t happen.
“Green was injured a lot this year and hits about as well as Frenchy with practically no HRs and no RBIS”
Think it’s possible to hit into 2 double plays in one inning?
by Bobby Cocks on Oct 20, 2008 3:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
We’re not going to have much of a middle-infield. How the hell are we going to make up the for the loss of KJ and Yunel when we already offensive holes in every outfield position? Here come Counsell and Eckstein!
by TradeAndruw on Oct 20, 2008 3:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Infante and Prado and Lillibrige of course!
Sigh.
by jjcollins on Oct 20, 2008 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't buy it
Braves are giving away too much. I doubt they will allow both KJ and Yunnel to be included if Hanson and one of our centerfielders prospects is included as well.
by dmack on Oct 20, 2008 3:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That is an awful trade for the Braves
Why would the Braves trade their starting middle infield, their best pitching prospect and Gorkys for Peavy? Greene is a throw in and a salary dump. Wren should be fired if that deal is made.
by NEBravesFan33 on Oct 20, 2008 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's a really crazy idea.
Throw in Chuck James too.
Yes this is way too much to give up.
JB in ATL
http://braveslaunchingpad.com
by JBinATL on Oct 20, 2008 3:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I say throw in Chuckie regardless....
That is if the Padres would actually take him. He may be the first pitcher to successfully give up a ton of homers in PETCO
by bonesaw on Oct 20, 2008 4:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trading eight seasons of top-ten middle infielders, a top 30 prospect, and a top 100 prospect for five post-peak seasons of a pitcher and two minor prospects is a terrible trade. You trade prospects to get young cost controlled talent; you don’t trade young cost controlled talent to get middle-aged expensive talent.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I’m not disagreeing with the bulk of your statement, I agree … as it’s listed is too expensive. I do have a problem with calling Peavy “post-peak”. I wish I could find the study that came out oh 3/4 years ago that identified pitchers peaks years to begin around their 27th to 28th year and run into their 35th/36th year. Outside of the theorized injury issues I can’t find another reason for calling Peavy post peak.
Yes he had an off year and yes he missed time to injuries, but what pitcher doesn’t from time to time. Very few in my mind. I just don’t think it justifies your designation.
by scstrato on Oct 20, 2008 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t buy anything that calls a peak nine seasons. The BP study said pitchers peak at 29. Peavy will be pitching next season at 28; so yeah, post-peak was inaccurate, but it’s not like he’ll be pitching at his peak either.
The concern I have with Peavy isn’t injury – Carroll’s system had him in the green and he shouldn’t be much worse than a yellow going forward – it’s leaving Petco. The splits don’t show big issues if we go back several years, but going from Petco to the Ted will have an effect.
I’m not convinced Greene would represent an upgrade over Lillibridge at all. All in all, Greene won’t be a bad shortstop, but he’ll block Lillibridge from developing in the major leagues and he’ll cost far more than a shortstop of his skillset should. If I’m the Braves, I certainly don’t do a deal where I’m sending anything of value for any part of Greene. Taking his salary is enough.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought it was a BP article but for some reason I just can’t find it. I also could have phrased that better, I couldn’t remember the specific age range but I did remember it was late 20’s to mid 30’s. I also didn’t mean to infer it applied to individual pitchers (Peavy specifically), I’m pretty sure the study discussed starters in general (some pitchers peak earlier, some later). I do agree that leaving Petco will affect his overall stats, but I think how much is debatable. The last I read the Ted isn’t exactly a hitters park, but ANY park is more hitter friendly than Petco.
I think you and I are on the same page as far as Greene goes. Although until Lilli shows me a little more I’m not as concerned about acquiring him dependent on the the “cost” of course.
by scstrato on Oct 20, 2008 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even I wouldn't agree to this
As much as I’ve been pushing for this deal I wouldn’t agree to trading both Yunel and KJ. One or the other, Hanson and another prospect (or two depending on if we get Greene back) would be OK in my book.
I’m not as sour on Greene as most are. He helps us against lefty pitching, which is a serious need in our Div., and I haven’t looked up the official numbers but I believe he is slightly better than league average defensively. I am sour on the price tag though, Yunels 500K (somewhere around there I think) vs. Greene’s 6.5 mil is a significant albatross in my mind.
by scstrato on Oct 20, 2008 3:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I would CRY
A fair trade IMO would be:
1.) Kelly Johnson or Yunel Escobar or Tommy Hanson (no Heyward, noway)
2.) Gorkys Hernandez or Jordan Schafer
3.) James Parr or Charlie Morton or JoJo Reyes
4.) Kris Medlen or Jeff Locke
5.) Scott Diamond or Ryne Reynoso or Jose Ortegano or Edgar Osuna
6.) Cody Johnson or Tyler Flowers (No Schafer and Flowers together)
7.) Manny Acosta or Jeff Bennet or Buddy Carlyle -or-Blaine Boyer
by bwellnjonesco on Oct 20, 2008 4:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Original Poster
pics or it didn’t happen
by Raffy Belliard's SLG% on Oct 20, 2008 4:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How bout Schafer, Prado, Rohrbough and Morton?
by SayHeyWerd on Oct 20, 2008 6:18 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
NO. FUCKING. HANSON.
Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.
by bigjoe on Oct 20, 2008 6:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Infante
If Escobar gets traded its not lillibridge that would be the starting SS it would be Infante (assuming Green isn’t coming back in the deal). It would be a spring training battle but I think Bobby would start out with Infante first. lilli would then move into Infante’s utility role where he could get 300 ABs next year. If Green does come back I could see him putting up better numbers and hitting some HRs…but his OBP would still be around .310-.300. Not pretty.
If we trade Escobar…I wonder if we could flip those propsects for JJ Hardy from Milwaukee? They are all hot to trot about their SS prospect-Escobar-and apparently are considering a trade for him. I would gladly take hardy. He has quietly averaged 25 Hrs a year the last two years and plays solid defense. His OBP isn’tgreat, but he doesn’t strike out alot either. He has traditionally hit #2 for the Brewers but that kind of pop could allow the braves to bat him further down …say 6th..to take advantage of the power.
by calbers on Oct 20, 2008 6:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Have you guys been reading all the pub on Hanson today? I’m thinking I may not trade Hanson straight up for Peavy.
by Bobby Cocks on Oct 20, 2008 6:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If Hanson is included in any trade
It’s a bad deal for the Braves. Peavy’s numbers away from Petco last year were concerning and there are questions about his health. Plus trading away pitching for pitching seems like take one step forward and one backwards. I know it isn’t a guarantee that Hanson will succeed, but if the Braves want to get back to the winning ways of old, they need to do what they did in the past. Building their team around great young starting pitching, we have JJ and with Hanson we would be on our way to getting back to our winning ways.
Honestly I don’t understand why most seem to prefer trading Hanson rather than Heyward, I feel 100% the opposite.
by MatM on Oct 20, 2008 7:04 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. Terrible trade all around for the Braves. Sets us back. We don’t have any prospects to replace Escobar. Remember Elvis Andrus(stud prospect) was traded to Texas in the Tex deal. We all know how that turned out for us. This deal would be worse because at least we were competing for the division in 07 when we traded for Tex with the thinking we’d compete in 08 too. I think we gave up too much in that deal, but at least we were on the fringe of competing. This deal makes NO sense whatsoever. I thought I wasn’t going to say anything but here I am again going off on a tangent because this deal is so ridiculous.
by BravesFan on Oct 20, 2008 7:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’d rather trade Heyward too. His chances of busting are a bit higher.
Peavy’s never shown home/road splits like he did in 2008 though. Call it a mix of sample size and the fact he faced offenses that scored 4.6 R/gm on the road compared to 4.4 R/gm at home.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You people just need to stop the madness!!!!!
There’s NO WAY IN HELL we should trade Heyward as opposed to Hanson! Hanson can only pitch once every 4th/5th day and I already know what the reaction will be if he’s called up and doesn’t post a sub 4 ERA, the same as it has been for Reyes, Morton, and Davies! Heyward would play EVERYDAY and has the potential to be a .300/30/100 guy so which guy would have more of an effect on a team on a daily basis? We already know the answer to that!
by Jay212033 on Oct 21, 2008 12:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitchers face more batters during a season than hitters have plate appearances. This idea hitters provide more “impact” has been debunked.
by 17843 on Oct 21, 2008 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I see that theory, and I’m sure you’ll provide a wealth of stats to prove me wrong, but I just can’t buy that. A pitcher can only have an impact in the games they pitch in, a hitter in the games they play in. Sorry, but I think a guy who can impact 150-162 games is more important that a guy who can impact 30-35 games as a starter or 50-80 games as a reliever.
by cbwilk on Oct 21, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The argument/debate isn’t about “games”, it’s about the plays that make up games. A pitcher is involved in more “plays” over the period of a season than a fielder/hitter is. I’ve really never dug deep into this argument and don’t necessarily have an opinion, but I see the argument from both sides.
by scstrato on Oct 21, 2008 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A hitter can’t provide anywhere near the impact in a game that a pitcher can. A hitter might hit five times in a game, a pitcher will usually face ~25 batters. If a pitcher has five times the impact of a hitter and plays in a fifth of the games, he’d have equal impact on the season.
Win Probability Added is a nice metric to gauge impact on a team as it measures preformance and the leverage such preformance occurred in. Only Manny, Berkman, and Pujols provided a higher WPA than Cliff Lee, the leading pitcher.
by 17843 on Oct 21, 2008 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And again, I’m sure that’s a great and really telling statistic, but I just can’t see how a pitcher can be more impactful over the course of a season. A pitcher can only help the team win in the games he pitches in, a hitter can help in every game, even if we only talking about moving the runner over or making a play on defense. They’re just out there more and have more chances to change the game. Again, those stats are great, but you can watch a game and see how a position player who went 0 for 5 helped his team win and a pitcher on the bench didn’t.
by cbwilk on Oct 21, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You can then see how the staff ace mowing down hitters over the course of 7 innings contributed a hell of a lot more than that hitter. I’m not disputing hitters have the ability to affect more games, I’m just disputing that they have anywhere near the impact a pitcher does on a single game.
More later. I have class.
by 17843 on Oct 21, 2008 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree that in a single game a pitcher has more impact than any hitter. They have the ball in their hand every pitch. I think we’re on the same page as far as this goes, within a single game, a pitcher, especially a starting pitcher, has a much greater impact than any given position player.
I was arguing that a position player has more opportunities over the course of a season, by the very virtue of them playing in more games, to impact a teams wins. I guess my argument boils down to one hitter can impact more games over the course of a season than one pitcher and therefor, to me, a hitter is more important over the course of a season.
(Have a good class.)
by cbwilk on Oct 21, 2008 2:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If I can get my hands on data, I’ll run some numbers on how many plays an average batter and pitcher affect (offense, pitching, defense, baserunning) a season and see who affects the most plays. I don’t expect a substantial difference though.
by 17843 on Oct 21, 2008 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m sure you’re right, the numbers probably are pretty close. I definitely take your word for it where stats are concerned. But, to me, the more important stat is games played and pitchers simply can’t compare. One pitcher isn’t involved in as many games as one hitter, so the hitter, just by virtue of playing in more games, can impact more wins.
Whether or not this means a hitter is more valuable than a pitcher is entirely questionable. Personally, I’d take an average hitter over an average pitcher any day, but I think I’d go with an elite pitcher over an elite hitter, simply because elite pitchers are so rare.
by cbwilk on Oct 21, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK that maybe true but..............
Hitters also play in the field as well which gives them even more of an advantage over the pitcher who in turn is almost an automatic out when they step to the plate!
by Jay212033 on Oct 21, 2008 2:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
pitchers also play in the field, so technically those are balanced out., What tips the balance (possibly) is that pitchers can affect the offensive output (in the NL), in terms of moving runners or actually gettin hits (see Micah Owings, Carlos Zambrano). Meanwhile, position players cannot affect pitching, unless they pitch.
Im not saying i fall either way on this subject, mostly because i dont see the value in it. Even if it is supposed that position players affect games more readily than pitchers that doesnt necessarily make position players prospects more valauble. Namely because finding effective pitching seems like a much more daunting task than finding guys who can hit. Although maybe that assumption is wrong who knows (i sure as hell dont)
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Oct 21, 2008 2:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I completely agree that ace pitching prospects are both more rare and more valuable than top notch hitting prospects, mainly because shut-down ace pitchers are more rare than stud hitters. There are a lot of guys who can hit at a high level, but very few who can pitch at a high level.
by cbwilk on Oct 21, 2008 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Most hitters don’t have more than 2-3 balls hit in their zone over the course of a game. Factor in that pitchers field too and I’m not sure it’s that big of a deal. I think baserunning provides the biggest advantage towards a hitter’s possible advantage over a pitcher.
by 17843 on Oct 21, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is my point and I'm done
Pitchers make anywhere between 30-45 starts right? I don’t care if the face 100 men per game it’s still ONE GAME! Hitters play everyday they may get a day off here and there but most everyday players play 140-155 games. I don’t care what kind of stats you try to throw at me you can’t tell me that a pitcher will have more of an effect that an everyday player!
by Jay212033 on Oct 22, 2008 12:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you don’t care about facts you shouldn’t be participating in a debate.
Pitchers have the oppurtunity to affect less games, but their effect on those games is much higher (3-5 times) than a hitter. Over the course of a season that erodes the edge hitters derive from playing in many more games.
Running raw numbers gives me something like 4.36 PA/gm, 1.37 base running opportunities/gm, 2.01 balls in zone/gm for hitters and 26.03 Batters faced/gm, 2.15 PA/gm, 0.38 base running opportunities/gm, and 1.32 total chances/gm for pitchers. 7.74 plays affected/gm and 29.88 plays affected/gm for pitchers.
These are for average pitchers and hitters in 2008 NL. 6 innings pitched were assumed for pitchers considering I couldn’t find any reasonable way to calculate a mean and the Braves starting pitchers’ fielding stats were used to estimate total chances. Figures should be in the ballpark which is all that’s necessary.
Assuming a full season (162 and 35) out of this average pitcher and hitter, the hitter would affect 1254 plays and the pitcher would affect 1046. So, very close with an edge to the hitter of about 20%.
I’d like to improve this by factoring in the importance of those base running opportunities (which is what is driving the hitters advantage), but I have no idea how to do so. Reducing their impact by half drops the hitter’s advantage to 10. Eliminating the impact of base running gives the pitcher a 1 advantage.
by 17843 on Oct 22, 2008 1:51 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Still seems like in the end the hitters come off with a slight edge (I may be reading it wrong, I’m nowhere near as adept with stats as you).
Either way, it’s a pretty interesting debate. For me, I’m not gonna be convinced against hitters having more chances to impact more wins, the number of games they play in just does it for me, but I can certainly see the pitcher side of the argument.
by cbwilk on Oct 22, 2008 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
chipper should take Peavy hunting
This would be a disasterous trade for the Braves in my mind. I am in no way saying the Braves should not pursue Peavy because I am as excited as the next guy on that Dave O’Brien poll in his blog… but with that being said, if Peavy comes at the cost of that proposed trade, then Frank Wen is not doing his job. That trade is way to loaded with future Braves impact players, in order to recieve just 1 impact player from the Padres.
A more reasonable trade for Braves fans to stomach would be a deal with Hanson as the centerpiece, surrounded by KJ, Schafer and Lillibridge. That deal would certainly have the high ceiling, major league ready prospects that the Padres are looking for, but at the same time we would be getting rid of fringe guys that I do not think the majority of knowledgeable Braves fans have completely bought into being impact players at the senior circuit (sans Hanson), but we don’t have to tell the Padres that now do we.
another favorable Braves trade that I would like to see FW push, would be a deal consisting of Rohrbrough, Medlen, Schafer/Gorkys, KJ, and Lillibridge. At first it may seem like a lot of pieces just for one player, but we would also have to take into account that this trade allowed the Braves to keep Hanson and Heyward in their system, while gaining one of the top 5 pitcher/badass in the game.
Either one of these trades would spell success in the Braves immediate, as well as long term future. The best thing that can happen for the Braves and the Braves fans would be for more and more teams to drop out of the Peavy race. Word is the Cardinals and the Astros have all but dropped out due to their lack of prospects needed and depth in the farm system. We should all be giving Peavy a tip of the cap for his trade restrictions because without them, we might be talking about possibly losing both Hanson and Heyward in order to get Peavy.
by MIZIKE on Oct 20, 2008 7:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
How in the hell would trading Schafer, Hanson, Lillibridge, and Johnson be a fair deal at all? That’s an established top-ten 2B and three basically ML ready “prospects”.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ehhh
i would consider KJ a fringe top 10 2B in this league. closer to top 15 if anything…lets not forget he pretty much got all of his numbers when the season no longer had meaning. not to mention that he is incredibly inconsistant with the bat and glove, which more often breaks a player than makes him. He is a great trading piece in the Braves system with the Braves MLB 2B depth.
Obviously prospects are what the Braves are going to have to give up in this trade to get Peavy. Where not gonna be able to screw the Padres because Towers is a class GM in baseball. Both Lilli and Schafer are borderline MLB ready prospects that are great trade pieces in the Braves system. We also have to factor in Peavy’s great contract in this trade because the Padres certainly are…
by MIZIKE on Oct 20, 2008 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Johnson is indisputably a top ten 2B in baseball. His defense is solid average – (/-) +0 in 2007, -1 in 2008; 15th of 22 in 2007, 7th of 17 in 2008; he was 8th among 2B with 300 PAs in Equivalent Average in 2008 and 4th in 2007. his combined offensedefense in 2008 was somewhere between 8-10th in baseball behind Utley, Pedroia, Roberts, Kinsler, Polanco, Uggla, and DeRosa, tied with Lopez and Ellis.
2. If we’re considering the context of his preformance, he ranked 3rd among 2B in Win Probability Added in 2008.
3. The Braves have hardly any 2B depth – despite Martin Prado’s nice 200 PAs, he’s never proved he can handle the position offensively and defensively, Lillibridge has never played the position regularly, and the only prospect of note just finished up High A-ball.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 11:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like i said…lets not forget he pretty much got all his numbers when the season no longer had meaning.
June: 117 PA, 25 H, 1 HR, 9 RBI, 16/18 BB/SO, .224 AVG., .723 OPS, .293 BAbip
July: 87 PA, 17 H, 2 HR, 8 RBI, .223 AVG., .661 OPS, .259 BAbip!
August: 99 PA, 22 H, 0 HR, 7 RBI, 25 SO, .237 AVG., .577 OPS!, .324 Babip
…those numbers are from the middle of the season. the make or break point. these numbers led up to Tex getting traded, which was the official white flag moment of the season. The next month of the season, his numbers looked like this:
Sept/Oct: 106 PA, 39H, 3 HR, 19 RBI, .398 AVG.!, .429 OBP!, .643 SLG!, 1.071 OPS!, .450 BAbip
…now those are eye popping numbers. im not sure if he won NL player of the month, but he would of gotten my vote. KJ’s SLG % for the month of Sept and a day or two in October (.643) is higher than his OPS % for August (.577) and almost July (.661).
Now I have no problem with KJ and i think he is an asset to the team, but sometimes assets can be trade material. Coming into the season KJ showed much potential to be a top 10 2B in the MLB, but for most of the season he failed to live up to that expectation. He is still the same streaky hitter that has various miscues in the field (including the ones that he ends up making the play on). Prado showed me enough during those 200 PA to at least give him a shot as the everyday 2B. if that doesn’t work out and he goes on a KJ like middle of the season slump, then there is always Infante there (if hes not covering for Chipper) to takeover or even possibly Lillibridge. That is what I mean by depth at the position for next year.
by MIZIKE on Oct 22, 2008 12:44 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll boycott the Braves if that deal goes down...
HELL. NO.
- Oh, Bobby. -
by sdp on Oct 20, 2008 7:25 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Same here. Front office stupidity should not go unnoticed by the fans. As much of a die-hard Braves fan I am, I will definitely be boycotting the Braves if this deal goes down.
by BravesFan on Oct 20, 2008 8:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We get the best player in the trade in Peavy...therefore we win!
I would trade Yunel, KJ, Hanson, and Gorkys for Peavy, Greene and minor leaguers.
And I saw Hanson’s no-hitter and all his other starts in Mississippi.
by themurph on Oct 20, 2008 8:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You have no concept of value then. Even assuming the prospects bust, I can’t fathom a scenario where the combined value of Peavy+Greene is larger than the value of Escobar+Johnson. That’s ignoring salaries too; including them in the debate makes it even more lopsided in the Padres favor.
by 17843 on Oct 20, 2008 8:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Small Update on Peavy's Mechanics
Also, as a result of a conversation with Carlos Gomez I have been persuaded that the tail on Jake Peavy’s ball is more a function of his lower arm slot than it is due to pronation on his part. This means that his elbow is likely more at risk than I originally believed.
No pronation is a big deal. If you do not pronate, you put more stress on the UCL ligament. Destroying the UCL = Tommy John surgery.
And like everyone else already said, this is an absolutely AWFUL trade.
by VictorW on Oct 20, 2008 8:33 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
after thinking about that combined with this current trade proposal, the more I think this could turn into a mistake that sets back this organization years and I don’t think the Braves can afford that type of mistake at this point
by MIZIKE on Oct 20, 2008 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've got to think your insider doesn't know what the hell he's talking about...
.. Frank Wren cannot possibly be dumb enough to make a trade as ridiculous as this.
- Oh, Bobby. -
by sdp on Oct 20, 2008 9:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
for what its worth, theres no cory luebke in the padres system. theres a cory kluber…but you couldn’t possibly botch the name that badly, right?
and if that deal was on the table, it would already be signed, sealed & delivered because theres no fucking way towers would turn that down.
Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.
by bigjoe on Oct 20, 2008 9:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
in other news the braves are trading chipper jones for willy aybar
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Oct 20, 2008 9:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I know I've said this once before...
but if we see another “let’s deal top prospects in a futile attempt to contend” deal, I’m reserving the rights to firefrankwren.com.
Seriously guys, even with Peavy, our rotation would be pretty mediocre.
1. Peavy
2. Jurrjens
3/4/5 Campillo/Hampton/take your pick of bad pitchers
That isn’t a playoff caliber rotation even IF Peavy is in 2007 form and Jurrjens repeats his performance next year.
As for Khalil Green, who I imagine the Padres are going to package in any deal for Peavy to unload his contract, I’m not sold that he’s done, but I also don’t see any reason to believe he’ll be better next year than Escobar.
Furthermore, there’s ample reason to have questions about more than Peavy’s health. 2008 was his worst season since his first year in the rotation.
Year – K9/BB9/HR9
2003: 7.2/3.8/1.5
2004: 9.6/3.0/.73
2005: 10.2/2.4/.85
2006: 9.9/2.8/1.06
2007: 10.4/2.9/.56
2008: 9.1/3.2/.93
Those 2008 numbers are a lot less impressive when you consider the effect Petco has on offense. Oddly enough, Petco doesn’t just give up fewer hits, it also has an inflationary effect on strikeouts – why? I’m not 100% sure, but the numbers seem to bear this out.
That being said, Peavy is still a front of the line guy if healthy. I’m just not sure he’s as good as he seems in Petco, nor do I think adding him makes us a playoff team. Personally, I think a return to the postseason for the Braves is a few years down the road, and because of that I feel that shipping prospects and inexpensive young starters out is a bad idea at this point. If we do get to a point where there’s that one guy to get us over the top, pull the trigger. Peavy isn’t going to do that for us.
by BraveBronco0121 on Oct 20, 2008 10:07 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This argument is tired
It’s been brought up in every posting that mentioned Peavy over the last several days. It’s even been brought up in some postings that didn’t mention Peavy.
As far as I can tell, nobody who is on the side of trading for Peavy has said that he “makes us a championship team” or “puts us over the top”. In fact, several postings went into detail explaining that very thing. He’s step #1. My argument for trading for Peavy is that no matter how high a prospects upside, until he pitches against MLB talent you don’t know what you’ve got. I am VERY high on Tommy Hanson, he really showed me something this year. But he has yet to face a single hitter above AA and even though his numbers are outstanding, can you say for sure this kid will reach his potential? I won’t argue against what he’s doing in the AFL, very impressive. I’ve just seen too many “can’t miss” prospects miss to put all my eggs in that basket.
Also, I have yet to see anyone who says Peavy’s 2008 numbers are great. I think we can all agree it was not his best year, not even close. But you’re focusing on a single years performance where he was KNOWN to be injured, not to mention he played on an absolutely pathetic team. I agree there is cause for concern, those numbers are worrisome, I just disagree with the “ample” part.
We’re also focusing on “speculated” trade scenarios. Frank Wren hasn’t been quoted as saying who is or isn’t on the trade talk table, all we have to go on is information from writers who use “sources”. Some of these may be true but more often than not I would theorize they’re not even close to actual trade discussions.
Last point, IF the Braves do agree to a trade for Peavy is it not a reasonable expectation that they would review every medical file available to them, not to mention request at the very least some sort of physical? Even if he does check out ok I’ll still give you there’s no assurance he won’t go down with another injury. But with what we endured this year can you honestly say that the rest of our pitchers are any different? All pitchers run the risk of injury, even those who don’t project to be injury prone, and I agree some are much more risky than others. But in my mind, IF the price is right, a true power pitching staff Ace is very hard to come by.
“That being said, Peavy is still a front of the line guy if healthy.” I don’t think anyone here would argue against you on this point, but I believe if we do our due diligence to confirm he’s not harboring a significant injury, isn’t it worth a little risk to land a staff Ace (price dependent of course)?
by scstrato on Oct 20, 2008 10:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A little risk is one thing...
but a little isn’t what the Padres are going to want. They’re going to want at least one, if not more, major league ready players who are inexpensive and at the very least serviceable. On top of that, they’ll probably want at least two good prospects. Getting Peavy may be step 1, but it may also cost us a number of other key building blocks. I know we’ve been through this when talking about the Tex trade, but let’s face it, we lost two of the highest upside players in our farm system in that deal. They may never pan out, sure, but it’s not a little risk that we took, it was a rather significant one. Even if we want to just look at prospects as trading chits, it’s clear that Feliz and Andrus are both far more valuable now than they were a year ago, and all we got for Tex was Kotchman and Marek. Feliz and Andrus would almost surely be able to make up the backbone of a deal for Peavy, who is under contract for a number of years at a good rate (and thus a far better guy to get than Tex was), if that is what you feel is best. I simply think it is very unwise to, over the course of two years, unload a significant portion of your farm system. Deep systems like Atlanta’s are not built overnight, and they shouldn’t be unloaded without significant return on investment. I don’t think Tex gave us that, and I don’t think Peavy give us that considering the team’s situation. I get that you don’t feel that Peavy puts us into the playoffs, and I don’t intend to characterize your argument as such. I just don’t see the point in putting Escobar and a couple of top prospects into a package for Peavy and likely Khalil Green. It significantly adds to our payroll, it is unlikely to make us into a winner, and it sends young contributors who are still quite inexpensive out of our system. I may feel a lot differently about it had we had not dealt for Tex – Andrus, while not ML ready, would make the loss of a middle infielder a lot easier to bear. Feliz, due to the risk associated with pitchers that young, would be much easier to trade than Hanson, who had shown dominance at the AA level and in the AFL so far. But right now, dealing one of our middle infielders would hurt, and giving up Hanson would leave the system rather weak in the SP department above the single A level.
So, I guess in a nutshell, we just have a disagreement about when to hold prospects and when to deal them. I’m a bit more conservative in that I feel you don’t sell the farm unless it does put you into the postseason. You clearly feel differently, and I’m probably not going to change your opinion on that. Probably best to just agree to disagree and move on.
Does Chief Noc-A-Homa have a peace pipe?
by BraveBronco0121 on Oct 21, 2008 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to say your argument wasn’t valid. Just that I’d seen similar arguments already and I thought I’d debate you on a couple of your points. Maybe I chose the wrong subject?
Honestly I don’t think we disagree as much as you might think. I would consider myself somewhat conservative with regards to trading prospects and I don’t necessarily disagree with you on who we should give up in a trade for Peavy. In fact, as the deal is listed in the original post I think that’s flat ridiculous. Both middle infielders plus Hanson, no way! Further, I’m starting to lean towards your perspective of not wanting to include Yunie and Hanson in the same deal, but I also realize you have to give up something to get something. I tried to make the point in my post that acquiring Peavy is a cost dependent deal in my opinion. Sure we probably disagree slightly on which and how many prospects to include, but I think I would characterize it as me being slightly less conservative than you. I just can’t get past wanting to see that power pitching staff Ace that is eventually what we need to add to get us deep in the playoffs. Your probably right, i’m willing to pay a little more than most to get it.
Fair enough?
by scstrato on Oct 21, 2008 2:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i can see the basis for saying u don’t want to “unload the farm” for Peavy, becuase you think it didn’t work out when we did it for Tex. However, thats a fallacy that cannot be purported in running a team. Its one of those things you need to have a short memory, and i dont mean not learning from one’s mistakes, but I think this can hardly be considered a mistake. No one really thought the Tex trade was horrible when it was made, namely because we thought it would get us over the top, it didnt and then 2008 was a disappointment, however both of those had absolutely nothing to do with TEx.
I agree as it turns out we didnt get the return out of the Tex deal we thought we would, I dont think anyone will argue that. But hindsight is a 20/20. This trade, supposing we dont trade our MI then all of our top prospects, would help us in the long run.
basically all im saying is i dont think we can use the tex trade as a basis for not accepting the Peavy deal. our basis for not liking the Peavy deal should be the cost it takes to get Peavy, and if its anywhere near what is proposed here, everyone should be protesting it.
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Oct 21, 2008 2:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
tex did what he was supposed to do. don’t blame him for the pitching shitting the bed and francouer thinking he’s a professional ballerina instead of a baseball player
Following the Braves...one long hard drink at a time.
by bigjoe on Oct 21, 2008 3:17 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i wasnt blaming him i was saying blaming anyone, i was merely saying the trade cant not be assessed afterwards on the way things turned out, for the sole reason that Tex did everythin he could to get us in the playoffs, outside of pitching every 5th day
"We win today, that's two in a row... if we win tomorrow, that's called a winning streak. It has happened before..."
by Swo12bv on Oct 21, 2008 7:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I sincerely hope that your source is unreliable, because I simply can’t believe that Wren would make a move like this.
by soup du jour on Oct 20, 2008 11:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay, this can’t be real.
1. There is no way the front office is unanimous on this topic. Someone would’ve hated the idea, realized the fan backlash, and leaked it to the press by now so a fan uprising would occur to stop it.
2. No one has reported anything close to that scenario.
3. Frank Wren said he wouldn’t trade any of the top prospects from the next wave. Isn’t that point of including Escobar to keep from doing that?
4. It makes no sense. The Braves are looking to add offense as well as pitching, trading both Yunel and Kelly in the same trade would open up even more holes in the offense. You don’t fix holes by creating new ones.
by beeniez on Oct 21, 2008 1:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The only way I'd trade both KJ and Yunel..
…is if I get Chase Headley and Matt Antonelli in the deal, plus pitching.
by RainDelay on Oct 21, 2008 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is FALSE, the only “rumor” (or insider info…w/e) resembling this is some idiot wanna be blogger/journalist (not the original poster in this forum) that misread an article from David Obrien about including the three. Obrien said that it would take one of the three, the blogmister read it as taking all three. Then someone randomly heard Gorkys Hernandez/Kris Medlen and added them to the equation.
I’m NOT referring to the original poster as the wanna be blogger/journalist…I’m referring to a website that posted the rumor.
by bwellnjonesco on Oct 21, 2008 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
This supposed offer is total nonsense. Don’t believe it for a second.
by dwbrave on Oct 21, 2008 2:44 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
www.baseballrumormill.com <<<pretty much the very poorman’s version of MLBTR
David O’Brien thinks that, to acquire Peavy, the Braves will have to give up Yunel Escobar, Kelly Johnson and Tommy Hanson.
^Thats the mistake, David O’Brien doesn’t say/think that.
by bwellnjonesco on Oct 21, 2008 3:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Thank you for bringing this mistake to our attention. We misinterpreted what Dave O’Brien wrote and apologize. We have posted a correction on our website and regret the error.
http://www.baseballrumormill.com/2008/10/correction-latest-on-peavy-1020/
by baseballrumormill on Oct 23, 2008 10:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mad props to you!
It takes someone special to admit when they’re wrong, even more rare… someone who corrects their mistakes. Case in point (and I know i’ve beat this dead horse silly), Mark Bowman’s article posted on MLB.com on 10/16 in which he refers to Jordan Schafer as a “pitching” prospect. In fact, it’s still there today.
I just wanted to let you know how much I appreciated this.
by scstrato on Oct 23, 2008 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I second that
Rather than getting into one of those ego-driven, snippy little snit fits we’re so used to seeing – this was refreshing!
by secondbass on Oct 23, 2008 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
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.
