Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
- picasso
- All-Star
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: May 12 06, 2:51 pm
Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
If Fuentes appears beyond our reach why aren't these SP getting more play? I'm sure the Cards are gun-shy with potential arm aggravated pitchers.
But the Cubs are rumored back in the mix for Peavy with a potential Marquis giveaway to Colorado. Offering second tier retread prospects like Pie and Cedeno along with Vitters and Marshall. Why don't we beat this offer? The Cardinals are on his acceptable trade list.
Also, they'd offer 2 yr 18 mil to Fuentes but not a similar offer to Sheets? Maybe 3/27?
Maybe Mo is playing it close to the vest, but pick up one of these two pitchers, add a loogy, I'd call it a good off-season.
But the Cubs are rumored back in the mix for Peavy with a potential Marquis giveaway to Colorado. Offering second tier retread prospects like Pie and Cedeno along with Vitters and Marshall. Why don't we beat this offer? The Cardinals are on his acceptable trade list.
Also, they'd offer 2 yr 18 mil to Fuentes but not a similar offer to Sheets? Maybe 3/27?
Maybe Mo is playing it close to the vest, but pick up one of these two pitchers, add a loogy, I'd call it a good off-season.
- UK
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4273
- Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
- Location: Baseball Purgatory.
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
Derosa would likely need to be included or traded to acquire another prospect to be included. Derosa, Vitters, and Marshall is a substantial initial offering for Peavy and prob. wasn't enough to initially get the deal done. That would appear to be a difficult offer for STL to match (minus the top prospect).
As far as Sheets, I would agree.
As far as Sheets, I would agree.
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
I'm not really sure. Earlier when we discussed a Peavy deal, I was pretty against it but I assumed Rasmus would have to be part of the package. A bunch of B prospects, I wouldn't care about parting with at all for a pitcher of his caliber. Sheets? No idea either, but my guess is that Mo doesn't want to make the first offer and Sheets won't go anywhere without him knowing and either bidding or passing.
If Lowe goes to the Mets for less than we gave Lohse, I don't know whether I'll laugh or cry. Cry, probably. (yes, I think he'll get more than that)
If Lowe goes to the Mets for less than we gave Lohse, I don't know whether I'll laugh or cry. Cry, probably. (yes, I think he'll get more than that)
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
San Diego wants DeRosa, or is this part of a three-team thing? I hadn't head that package.UK wrote:Derosa would likely need to be included or traded to acquire another prospect to be included. Derosa, Vitters, and Marshall is a substantial initial offering for Peavy and prob. wasn't enough to initially get the deal done. That would appear to be a difficult offer for STL to match (minus the top prospect).
- UK
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4273
- Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
- Location: Baseball Purgatory.
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
Levine is saying that SD wants Derosa in the deal, which for the Cubs would increase the need for a RF'er and put Fontenot at 2B.
-
- Official GRB Sponsor of Larry Bigbie
- Posts: 28050
- Joined: April 17 06, 9:16 pm
- Location: No. 16 on the Cards Top 15 Prospect List
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
He should. If he doesn't, then I don't know anyone who could have predicted that before the offseason started. I don't say that to justify the Lohse deal, but it's just amazing how far the market has apparently dropped.If Lowe goes to the Mets for less than we gave Lohse, I don't know whether I'll laugh or cry. Cry, probably. (yes, I think he'll get more than that)
I still think that patience is the right move right now. Prices are only going to drop. I'm still holding out for Sheets at $11 million for one year.
- UK
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 4273
- Joined: December 10 06, 6:41 pm
- Location: Baseball Purgatory.
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
I'll bet you are.I'm still holing out.
Has STL been linked to any starters recently? To me, that is their biggest need right now.
- picasso
- All-Star
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: May 12 06, 2:51 pm
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
It just seems to me that DeRosa is a league average 2B paid fairly, Marshall is a potential #3 SP and Vitters is a jewel in the rough A ball hitter who could be great or fade. I just don't see that as a tough match unless Peavy is a definite injury waiting to happen.UK wrote:Derosa would likely need to be included or traded to acquire another prospect to be included. Derosa, Vitters, and Marshall is a substantial initial offering for Peavy and prob. wasn't enough to initially get the deal done. That would appear to be a difficult offer for STL to match (minus the top prospect).
As far as Sheets, I would agree.
Anderson, Motte, Jay or Jones, Boggs, Schu seems above the Cubs offer. We have a lot of ML depth to trade from right now. Losing any of these players would not hurt us next season (if we acquired Peavy).
- haltz
- Hall Of Famer
- Posts: 22034
- Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
- Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
I think you are selling DeRosa a little short there. Since 2006 he's been a 3-4 win 2B. But he's making $5.5M next year and then is a FA so it's a little weird to me that San Diego wants him in this deal.
- cpebbles
- Perennial All-Star
- Posts: 8838
- Joined: August 30 07, 12:28 pm
Re: Remind me why we're not in on Peavy or Sheets.
It'd be hard to match that exact trade package, but San Diego isn't really in a position to have needs that specific, and it wouldn't be hard for many teams to put together a package comparable in overall value. That said, Mozeliak said it wasn't on the table and refused to give any specifics as to why, which indicated to me that they were insisting on Rasmus and likely another of our top prospects.