Analysis of the Peavy Situation
The Braves currently have the leverage in the Jake Peavy trade negotiations. They are probably the only real suitor, among the limited, for his services. The Braves do not need to panic as soon as one free agent starter signs. While Dempster eliminated himself from the Braves, the Cubs practically eliminated themselves from Peavy. (I know they said they might still pursue Peavy even after signing Dempster, but why would they spend the money *and* prospects on another star starter and not on their hometown boy Kerry Wood?) The Braves will continue to have all the leverage until after all the big name free agent starters disappear with the Braves standing there empty handed.
Towers may look dumb now but I think he's being realistic. The Braves need two starters - they even admit it. How hard is it to find *one* quality starter, let alone "*two*? Towers probably knows that the chances of the Braves getting two quality starting pitchers not named Jake Peavy is very small. But, that still doesn't take away from their pressing need to trade him with only a limited amount of suitors. I do not think that Peavy is going to expand his teams much further - he might if that team extends his contract to Sabathia money, but we saw last year that only one team was willing to spend the record money and prospects with Johan Santana. The Twins were forced to take a smaller package then they visioned - that's what happens when a player has team by the balls.
The Padres probably need to trade Peavy more than the Braves need to trade for Peavy - even if the Braves are still starting pitcher-less and desperate. I'm sure it's easier to explain to your boss why your team lost 90 games than it is to explain to your boss why you failed to decrease payroll by $20 or so million. Let's be honest for a second: the Braves will need to add several key pieces to seriously contend next year. If they Braves lose out on all those free agent pitchers, which they need *two* of, the Padres still are only offering only *one* starting pitcher. Peavy alone will not help the Braves compete next year, so if they lose out on all the other free agents then I think the need to trade for Peavy actually decreases. It wouldn't make much sense trading for Peavy now for hopes of 2010, unless another club trades for him he's not going anywhere - which seems to be unlikely, we'd have to pay his salary for a non-contending year, give up prospects who could have better value in a year, Peavy could be an entirely different health risk in a year, and our need for starting pitching might not be so glaring as it is now if some players find their groove.
Peavy signed his below market contract because he was happy and wanted to keep winning in San Diego. Well, now they want to trade him - he's obviously unhappy, and they're not going to win anytime soon. If you love your company so much that you agree to take a salary cut to stay with them, but then afterwards they want to send you somewhere else, are you going to be happy and play along? I'd assume that Peavy would make this as difficult for them as possible - and rightfully so. He signed a contract to stay with San Diego. If they wanted to move me, I'd be very particular of where I was willing to go and not lenient at all - especially since I gave up free agency and took a pay cut to stay. This continues to put the Padres at a disadvantage.
The Braves shouldn't panic about Peavy going anywhere - the Braves still have the leverage and the best prospects. A good GM would call up the Braves and ask if they can beat a current offer that will send Peavy elsewhere - but right now it's hard to determine if Towers is being a good GM. If the Braves want *two* quality starting pitchers, they will have to sign Burnett, Lowe, Sheets, or Sabathia pretty quickly. That would definitely frighten Towers and continue to give the Braves leverage throughout the offseason.
Rosterbation:
The Braves need to sign AJ Burnett. I think if the Braves signed Burnett, it would increase their chances of getting Peavy. In Burnett's past deal, he could opt out after so many years. Give that to him again or give him that fifth year as a player option - maybe even an evergreen clause. I get it, he's injury prone - but he seems to turn it up a notch when he's approaching free agency so this deal could potentially make him a better player in theory.
If the Braves signed Burnett, it could potentially make Towers panic and accept our previous Escobar, Gorkys, Morton or Reyes, Boyer or Low-A prospect package - or even less. That would allow us to pursue Furcal even harder - a health risk still too enticing not to take. If these scenarios happen and the dominoes continue to fall, we could still trade Kelly Johnson for Ryan Ludwick - assuming that's a real option - since we wouldn't be downgrading at both middle infield positions anymore.. So there you have it, we've upgraded at short, acquired our two starting pitchers and outfield bat, spent around $40 million - our budget, and got the leadoff hitter we've been missing since Furcal left.
0 recs |
17 comments
Comments
Wow that was hard to read
But the only thing I would point out is that going from Escobar to Furcal is not an upgrade at this point. One is young, improving, and cheap while the other one is old, declining, and expensive.
by JFP on Nov 19, 2008 6:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Yep. Furcal = expensive downgrade
and while rebuilding, expensive downgrades are the ultimate bad calls.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 19, 2008 6:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Even matching NY for Burnett at 16mil/yr and acquiring Peavy at roughly the same amount (I encourage doing both), that leaves 18mil for an impact bat. ChiSox can’t demand too too much in return for one year of Maggs, just give them Gorkys back and throw in a decent arm. I hate the Ludwick idea as proposed.
by TradeAndruw on Nov 19, 2008 6:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The ChiSox can’t demand anything in return for Maggs, he doesn’t play for them.
by cbwilk on Nov 19, 2008 7:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Just because he doesn’t play for them, doesn’t me the Sox can’t make demands.
by buzzdeadwax on Nov 20, 2008 7:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The Braves will not get Burnett
Period, end of story, thanks for watching, the Yanks are offering Yankeebucks and he’ll take the money and run.
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 19, 2008 6:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Sub in Lowe or Sheets, my point was that we have the money to compete, 50mil may not go as far as it used to, but we aren’t the Pirates.
by TradeAndruw on Nov 19, 2008 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You can’t say that with such certainty.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2008/11/latest-on-aj-bu.html
There is no safe way to win the division next year. We have to take risks such as giving him that fifth year.
by beeniez on Nov 19, 2008 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Better to miss out on a player than sign an albatross of a contract
by BraveBronco0121 on Nov 19, 2008 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If we had missed the playoffs once, I’d agree. But after several years of losing, I want them to take a chance on a Burnett or Sheets.
by beeniez on Nov 20, 2008 2:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Wren is smart he won't give up Yunel at this point
They didn’t take him the first time, so they missed out. Why give them the same offer if they didn’t feel it was enough the first time. Towers might feel pressured to take a deal later for less.
by scottyboy10 on Nov 19, 2008 8:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Good analysis
In my opinion, I do believe we still need to get Peavy. The FA starters will one by one be taken off the board, all getting big bucks as Boston and New York drive up the price tags on all these question mark players anyway.
Lowe- Boras client looking for 16 mil a season for 5 years, too long for an injury risk, too old
Burnette- def the best option I think despite also having to pay out the ass for him, thanks Stienbrenner….
Sheets- Huge injury risk, also not coming cheap
That Leaves us with the likes of the Garlands and the Wolfs and Oliver Perezes. Do we really want to add 2 of these guys to our rotation to compete next year? None of them will be cheap either and will prob not help us much. Aside from Hanson, do we have any other young pitchers ready to make an impact next year?
Now I hate the idea of losing Esco, I love watching the kid play and I believe he has a bright future, but we have already made a list of untouchables, and could make this Peavy trade without losing any of them. You have to give up something to get something. And if we can pull off this trade without Escobar, than even better, but I do believe we need Peavy, not only for this season, but for the 4 years beyond.
So Wren, get us Peavy, do it….do it
by bravesguy311 on Nov 20, 2008 9:38 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Burnette
I have contended that he should have been the #1 target for the Braves, my idea off season would be like this.
1. Sign AJ Burnette to a 5/75 and make it were he can opt out after 3 years of the deal.
2. Trade for Jake Peavy & Kalil Greene, by sending Esco, Gorkys, Morton, Boyer, Locke and 1 of our 4 4th OF candidates.
3. Sign Adam Dunn to a 3/42 deal.
4. Resign Hampton and Smoltz to 3 mill base with encentives. could go as high as 8 mill
5. Sign Rocco Baldelli for 2/8 as a 4th OF and platoon option for both Dunn and Kotchman with Dunn playing 1B on those days.
There is a total of 45 million spent and basically our roster is set.
by mauck98 on Nov 20, 2008 10:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
Opt out clause
Don’t you think the Jays are smarting for agreeing to that opt out clause after only two years and the dodgers with JD Drew didn’t like it either. That and a no trade clause are the two things I would never agree to in signing a FA. I would give mutual options or club buy out options but never give the player that kind of power.
by JFP on Nov 20, 2008 11:39 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Normally, I wouldn’t want to give that kind of opt out clause either. But, I think the Braves are in win-now mode still, and if that’s what it takes to get an ace for two or three years, fine. It’d be just like a trading for someone in the middle of a contact but without giving up prospects. With Hanson emerging and Jurrjens maturing even further, our need for an ace might not be as great for the 2010 or 2011 season. Plus, Burnett seems to turn it up when he approaches free agency – so that kind of gives him an incentive.
by beeniez on Nov 20, 2008 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

by 












