Why Jake Peavy isn’t like Johan Santana


Johan Santana dominated the baseball off-season last year. For much of November, December and January, the news began and ended with Santana rumors and shenanigans. This year, while the free agent class is strong, Jake Peavy seems to be the name making the trade rumor rounds.

As everyone knows, we at RAB were stridently opposed to the Santana deal. While we’ll never know for sure, the Yanks seemed to be offering up at least Ian Kennedy and Phil Hughes along with some combination of outfield talent in exchange for just one year of Santana and the ability to sign him to a very long-term deal. Considering the money, pre-existing contract and outlay of talent, the Santana deal didn’t make sense to us then, and we have no regrets.

But I personally can’t say the same for Jake Peavy. The Padres are currently shopping the 27-year-old right hander. Peavy is set to make a good chunk of change, and San Diego would prefer to have the payroll flexibility as they attempt to rebuild after a disastrous season. Peavy also has a no-trade clause which complicates the matter.

Prior to this week, reports indicated that Peavy wanted to stay in the NL, and Atlanta had emerged as a clear destination. This week, however, rumors emerged that indicated a willingness on Peavy’s part to come to New York. The Padres are looking to off-load a contract; they want Major League or Major League-ready talent in return; and as everyone knows, it pays to keep the Yanks involved.

The gut reaction of many Yankee watchers is to lump this deal in with the Santana talks. If the Yanks wouldn’t trade for a proven AL lefty, why would they trade for Peavy? In reality, it’s not comparable.

It all boils down to the contract. Peavy is owed a little over $60 million over the next four seasons (with a $22 million option for 2013). For a pitcher just entering his pitching prime, that’s a relative steal. Unlike with Santana, a team acquiring Peavy wouldn’t be paying for just one year; they’d be trading away for four or five years of a pitcher.

Now, could Peavy succeed in the AL? That’s the question a lot of Yankee fans have asked. After all, not only has Peavy been a lifelong NL pitcher, but he’s thrived in the vast reaches of Petco Park. All we can do is look at some numbers. Since Petco opened in 2004, Peavy has pitched quite well there. In 541.2 innings, he has a 2.66 ERA. He has allowed 149 walks, racked up 600 K’s and has surrendered 37 long balls or one every 14.2 innings.

His numbers on the road, however, are rather encouraging. In that same time frame, Peavy has 427 road innings to the tune of a 3.31 ETA. He has allowed 47 home runs, has walked 143 and has struck out 410. Those are some pretty good peripherals. Furthermore, we have some limited numbers against the AL. In his career against American League teams, Peavy has thrown 120.1 innings with the following line: 3.29 ERA, 13 HR, 33 BB, 113 K. All of these numbers suggest the ability to get hitters out in any league.

Basically, this all boils down to the players involved in any potential trade. The contract isn’t an obstacle; Peavy’s stuff and his past success lend credence to the belief that he could pitch at a high level in the AL. I’m not opposed to seeing Ian Kennedy go in a potential deal; I’d be less thrilled to see Phil Hughes go; and I wouldn’t include both of them — or Robinson Cano by himself — in one trade. But if the right offer comes along and Peavy passes his physical, I’d welcome the righty to New York.

Categories : Hot Stove League


  1. Ivan says:

    Ladies and Gentlemen,

    Our 44th President, Mr. Barack Obama. Congradulations. Wow, Im so proud right now.

    Back to our scheduled program.

    • TurnTwo says:

      YES WE CAN!

      for opportunity and prosperity.

      yes we can!

      • RustyJohn says:

        Don’t mean to rain on your parade, but tomorrow morning (or January 2009 for that matter) everything will be the same, we’ll have two wars going on, a federal deficit around a trillion bucks for this year, and once all the paper the federal reserve and the treasury department has printed up hits the market there will be inflation that this country hasn’t seen before.

        So, unless “YES WE CAN!” suddenly decides to withdraw the US troops currently stationed in 120 countries, balances the federal budget, abolishes the federal reserve and replaces it with a gold standard and reforms Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security, we’re going to be having the same problems we have right now. Funny, I couldn’t find anywhere on the “YES WE CAN!” web page that mentioned how those things are going to be done.

        But I digress- it makes people feel good- like one giant collective vomit so don’t let me rain on the parade.

        • TurnTwo says:

          not raining on my parade.

          rational people realize nothing is done in one night. its about a vision for the country that helps improve things for the the next 4, or maybe the next 8, years.

          either jump aboard, or get left behind. your choice.

          • RustyJohn says:

            Lol….yes, if I don’t sit outside in a mass Munich-esque rally chanting blindly, “Yes, we can!”, I will be left behind. I still don’t quite understand what the vision is or how things will be improved by contniuing the same exact economic policies that have been going on for the past eight years (minus tax cuts).

            We’ll still have a federal reserve that is unaccountable to the people and who manipulates the value of money through inflation to help the banks, in the next 6 months or so inflation is going to start going through the roof and $4 a gallon gas will look cheap (this will be blamed on big oil and price and wage controls will be imposed, leading to shortages), deficit spending will continue leading to the continued devaluation of the dollar, regulation of speech and the airways will intensify, I could go on and on…

            Since none of these issues was addressed by the victor in his campaign, I will assume they weren’t relevant to him.

            Hope doesn’t pay my bills. I’ve already lived through the current political and economic climate- it was called the 1970s.

            But if it helps you through your day, take the blue pill and remain in blissful ignorance. I prefer to be left behind in a place I call “reality”.

            • You know, it could simply be that people are proud and joyful not because they foolishly think Barack is a miracle worker who will solve all our problems, but rather proud and joyful because our country electing a black man with a foreign-sounding name is a huge step forward for us in the continuing maturation of our nation, away from the racist and xenophobic divisions of the past.

              Whether you hew to the liberal or the conservative worldviews, you must admit the fact that a man who’s father was born in Kenya was just elected president, handily, and our cities are not on fire is an American accomplishment that seemed impossible less than a generation ago.

              That is all, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

              • RustyJohn says:

                It could simply be that I think people shouldn’t vote for elected officials because they have a big “R” or a big “D” at the end of their name, or because of color, or race, or ethnicity or gender and that perhaps it ought to be based upon the policies that will be enacted that effect everyone in this country (and around the world) regardless of those previously mentioned characteristics. In talking with many who supported the winner I find it odd that they can’t articulate any major positions that he has taken or, those they do articulate, are completely opposite from what he has advertised or campaigned on.

                At this point the only thing I know of with certainty is the tax cuts will expire and we will pursue “alternative fuels” which means 1) my utilitiy bill will go up and 2) every bird in the Plains will be killed as a windmill is placed every 10 feet.

                Trust me, I want o give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he does a splendid job since I live in America too- again, proud and joyful doesn’t mean a whole hell of a lot when you are sitting in a gas line for 3 hours every other day of the week, a loaf of bread costs 10 bucks, unemployment is over 10% and interest rates needs to be jacked up to 25% to soak up all the excess liquidity in the market.

              • Chris C. says:

                “Whether you hew to the liberal or the conservative worldviews, you must admit the fact that a man who’s father was born in Kenya was just elected president, handily, and our cities are not on fire is an American accomplishment that seemed impossible less than a generation ago.”

                Probably because most people in this country don’t know a thing about Kenya, or how brutal and backwards it is. They just legally stoned a 13 year old girl to death for adultery there, because she was raped by 3 men.

                But the only thing people here know about Kenya is that they always win marathons!

        • steve (different one) says:

          you’re right, how dare people be optimistic.

    • radnom says:

      Hear, Hear

  2. A.D. says:

    The other reason its not like Minn, is because SD won’t get desperate and trade to the last bidder, they can wait through to the trade deadline & next season, wait for Max offer. Therefore no team can get a deal

    • Steve says:

      Don’t be so sure. That owner is going through a messy divorce and may need the cash to settle it. Also, Peavy’s cheapest year is 2009. After that, he goes up to more market rate type salaries averaging around 16 mil per for the next 3. Its really only ONE cheap year you’re buying.

  3. Mark says:

    the problem that I have with the whole epavy obstacle is that because of his no trade clause, he can force the team that the Padres are trading him to to renew his contract and get more money. This becomes the same situation that Johan Santana was involved last year. Another problem that I have with Peavy is his endurance. He does not go deep into games and seems to use alot of pitches early on and can only make it through 7 at times.

    Avoid trying to get Peavy and just try and sign the free agents before anything.

  4. Steve says:

    Now Towers is saying he would want a Dan Haren style “quantity over quality” deal. 4-5 useful players for Peavy with one good one as a centerpiece.

    If Cash can unload some of the excess in the farm without giving up Hughes/Melancon/Montero/Betances then I’m all ears. Make A-Jax the centerpiece and give them 2 MLB ready relievers (D-Rob/Bruney/Veras/Cox) and 2 starters (IPK/Aceves/Z-Mac/Wright). If that gets it done, then great. If not, the free agents make more sense.

    • Jamal G. says:

      Dude, are you really telling me you would be willing to label a relief prospect an untouchable in a potential deal for a front-line starter that is signed for below-market value?

      • pat says:

        I dunno why you hate on melancon so much, its not like he projects to be some middle reliever or a lefty specialist. I know u know how good he is stuff wise and mentally, mariano is still the epitome of greatness in the closer role but he’s gonna retire sometime and we dont exactly have any other suitable replacements on the farm.

        • Ivan says:

          But if that’s the case then you might as well put Joba in the BP if you value Melancon that much. At the end of the day, an ace pitcher is always valuable than an ace reliever.

          • Steve says:

            Of course, but I don’t think this is an either/or situation. The relievers are the final pieces of a deal, they can be juggled around. I like Melancon’s upside and total package, I find a way to keep him out of any deal, which is doable.

          • whozat says:

            If it was a straight-up trade of Melancon for Peavy, your comment would make sense.

            But, since it wouldn’t be, and he’d be one of several pieces going to SD, AND the contract would have to be renegotiated in order to get Peavy to waive his no-trade…it’s completely different.

          • pat says:

            Im not saying a closer is more valuable than a SP by any means. But melancon is definitely more valuable than to be a throw in, in a deal that already has a centerpeice (hughes, ajax etc). Is doubtful that a package could be centered around a RP prospect so to just throw him in seems wasteful. I readily acknowledge as well, that I have a softspot if you will, for melancon. From all the scouting reports and first hand accounts I’ve seen I happen to think he could be a very special pitcher out of the bullpen. Maybe I overvalue him as a result, but his stats this year coming back from TJ and all the things you hear about his mentality lead me to beleive he has what it takes to be a real good closer in the future.

        • Jamal G. says:

          I have not a clue to what you are referring to when you say, “I dunno why you hate on melancon so much…”. I have never lend credence to that notion, ever.

          As to your entire point, I understand he is a stud prospect, but he is still a reliever. I am in no way saying to treat him as a throw-in, but at the same token, he should not be looked upon as a deal-breaker. If Kevin Towers offers a take-it-or-leave-it scenario in regards to Melancon being on or off the table, I’d be remiss if I didn’t make it clear how calamitous it would be if Melancon’s non-inclusion in a potential deal was the reason we could not acquire Jake Peavy.

          • Steve says:

            If Towers demands a package which is too expensive, you go and sign one of the free agents.

            You’re acting like we have our backs to the wall, and we don’t.

            • Jamal G. says:

              You are missing my point. I am not advocating for a full-court press for the acquisition of Jake Peavy. All I am saying is that if a fair deal is on the table, Mark Melancon should not be a deal-breaker. As a stud of a prospect he is, he’s still just a reliever. He’s not a starter, an up-the-middle player nor is he even a no-defense, slugging First Basemen. He’s a reliever.

          • pat says:

            Haha one time I said something about melancon being untouchable and you had the same “what are you crazy?” reaction. I didn’t mean u actually hated on him i was just surprised with your willingness to include him in a trade.

      • whozat says:

        Given that the trade would almost certainly be contingent upon bringing his contract up to market value…it makes more sense to be leery of including a Melancon-type arm.

      • Steve says:

        I wouldn’t say untouchable, but the other relievers I listed have MLB experience so they’re probably more attractive anyway. I’d rather keep Melancon out and give up a better 4th pitcher. Veras and Bruney as opposed to Veras and Cox, something like that. I don’t think who the relievers are would hold up the deal on either side. I can see Towers liking a prospect like A-Jax. With his speed and potential bat he could be a perfect fit in PETCO. Could work.

        BTW-There are free agent front line starters available, and more than one. Its not like were horny and he’s the only whore in town.

        • Jamal G. says:

          Ok, then I just misunderstood you. When you included Mark Melancon’s name in that group, I thought your point was that you would be against the deal if he were to be included. I agree it would make it less favorable, but not to the point where the trigger should not be pulled from the Yankees’ side.

  5. Dan says:

    I’m not 100% sure if I want Peavy yet, mainly because of what it’ll take to get him. If we can somehow hang onto Hughes, Jackson and Romine, I’d be happy. I wonder if a package of Cano, Kennedy, Igawa and Horne would be enough? Probably not.

    • pat says:

      Doubtful dude, horne has been too injured to have any current trade value and Igawa is pretty much a non-entity. I’m with you on the wishful thinking though.

      • Dan says:

        Yeah, you are right about Horne. This is why CC is the key to the off season.

        • pat says:

          Definately, cc is our securty blanket. A giant gi-hugey security blanket

        • Reggie C. says:

          I agree. Landing CC would allow the yanks some breathing space. At that point, they could decide to go conservative and try to bring back both moose and pettitte on 1 yr deals.

          If landing that second starter is a real priority and not mere leveraging then the Yanks have to decide if its worth going all out and getting Peavy giving us a shocking 1-2-3.

          It’ll cost us but is a run of a likely 4-5 years of dominant SP that could yield multiple WS wins worth it?? Is Peavy that much better than Burnett or Sheets?

    • Chris C. says:

      I don’t know guys. I haven’t exactly been hearing and reading glowing reports on Austin Jackson this year. Has anyone around here actually seen this guy play on a consistent basis, or is all this hype still based off the March issue of BaseballAmerica?

  6. Reggie C. says:

    So when Peavy says that he’ll want extra compensation for waiving his NTC to an AL team, does Peavy want us to pick up the option year or does he want a new contract altogether?

  7. Steve S says:

    I think one thing we have to consider is that all of the following: Hughes, Kennedy and Cano have reduced value than what they did last year. So while we all know their potential and their internal value, the reality is that Phil Hughes is coming off an injury plagued year where he didnt win a game as opposed to a year where he was dominant down the stretch and earned the only playoff victory for the Yankees when he bailed out Roger Clemens. Hughes’ year was a huge setback, he didnt even struggle, he missed so much time that this year was a complete 180 on his development.


    If I were able to center a deal around Cano, I would have to pull the trigger. I’m not saying that Cano is going to have seasons like 2008 all the time. I just value starting pitching more than position players. So maybe a Cano and Kennedy swap for Jake Peavy would do it for me. I would like to see a rotation of Peavy, Wang, Joba, Pettite, Hughes(or perhaps free agent). I love Hughes so I would be hesitant to trade him.

    • The Scout says:

      I don’t get the Hughes love. Although he certainly has the potential to be a successful major league starting pitcher, he hasn’t shown either the stuff or the durability that would mark him as a future ace. Peavy is simply an excellent, front-of-rotation type, and you can never have too many of them. I am not often in the minority on this prospect-loving site (why else would I read it?), but on this one I disagree with most of you. I would deal Hughes and Kennedy and Melancon for Peavy — and then still sign Sabbathia.

      • I don’t get the Hughes love. Although he certainly has the potential to be a successful major league starting pitcher, he hasn’t shown either the stuff or the durability that would mark him as a future ace.

        Pitcher A:
        Age 21 (rookie): 97.7 IP, 1.423 WHIP, 8.29 K/9, 4.52 ERA (83 ERA+)

        Pitcher B:
        Age 21 (rookie): 72.7 IP, 1.280 WHIP, 7.18 K/9, 4.46 ERA (100 ERA+)

        Any guess as to who pitchers A and B are?

        • … and, no one’s biting…

          Pitcher A is Jake Peavy.
          Pitcher B is Phil Hughes.

          • The Scout says:

            Correct! some prospects pan out and became top-shelf major league pitchers — and others don’t. Peavy has walked the walk. To date, Hughes has not. He may do so eventually, but Peavy is a top pitcher in his prime. For a team with an aging core built to win now, Peavy is the better bet. I am not often in favor of trading top prospects; this is the exception.

            • But that’s not what you said. What you said was, you don’t understand why people are high on Hughes, because he “hasn’t shown either the stuff or the durability that would mark him as a future ace.”

              But he has. He’s shown the stuff. You have an argument on the durability, but Hughes has shown the stuff, in fact, he’s shown it to a greater degree than most of his age-peers and he’s posted better numbers than many of the current “aces” did at his age/experience level, like Peavy.

              Nobody is saying that Peavy isn’t the better bet than Hughes is. I just objected to your characterization of Hughes as a non-future-ace.

              Peavy is a top pitcher in his prime. For a team with an aging core built to win now, Peavy is the better bet.

              In a vacuum, yes. We need a ace, now, and if Jake Peavy was the only ace available and all it took was Hughes and some secondary prospects to get him, then we should do it. However, if there are alternative ways to fill the holes on our team that would allow us to acquire an ace without giving up Hughes, we should prefer that option, since Hughes does in fact have ace potential. I feel there are.

              Furthermore, if acquiring Peavy would cost us more than just Hughes the potential ace, but rather Hughes, Cano, and a few other valuable pieces, we are likely creating more problems then we’re solving in acquiring Peavy, thus negating the very reason (we’re built to win now) that we’d be acquring him in the first place. If we are, in fact, “a team with an aging core built to win now”, we should be shying away from the trade market and rather prioritizing free agency, since signing free agents does not subtract any talent from our current roster.

    • Curramba says:

      Some of you are soo gung ho about trading a relatively cheap player like Cano, who is a good 2nd baseman with good ave and better than ave power for a 2nd baseman. Who do you replace him? Please tell me of a player who is as young as Cano is, has the potential he has and is a 2nd baseman you can bring in to play in Pinstripes to replace him. btw, don’t mention Hudson because he is over 30 and doesn’t have the potential of Cano. One off year by Cano doesn’t mean the norm. The other thing to remember is that Cano wasn’t only problem on the team. I remember plenty of DPs from both Jeter and ARod. Also, plenty of K’s and errors to go around for higher priced players than Cano.

      Peavy may be a good pitcher but I don’t give too many prospects for him when I can get a premier pitcher on FA market. I’d rather they bring CC and Burnette than give up prospects for Peavy.

    • Chris C. says:

      “I just value starting pitching more than position players. So maybe a Cano and Kennedy swap for Jake Peavy would do it for me.”

      Yeah, good luck with that.
      You’re assuming the Padres DON’T value starting pitching over position players?

  9. RustyJohn says:

    How many of those Peavy interleague innings were against great offensive powerhouses like Seattle and Oakland?

    • Ben K. says:

      Who cares? The guy has a career strike out rate of nearly 1 per inning over 1200 innings. If you still doubt him, that’s a little ridiculous.

      • nmc says:

        also a good K to BB ratio against all which is a telling stat because that really has nothing to do with park factors and it pretty standard against all opponents.

      • RustyJohn says:

        I don’t doubt him, I’m merely pointing out that his American league numbers should be taken with a grain of salt and that if facing American League east competition with regularity he isn’t going to have as great numbers. I would agree he should be pursued if the price is right.

  10. dave says:

    Two postseason starts:

    4.1 innings, 8 hits, 8 ER

    5.1 innings, 11 hits, 5 ER

    Innings pitched: 194, 166, 203, 202, 223, 173

    I agree that he is a great pitcher with great stuff but the numbers don’t lie. In a small sample size, he has been AWFUL in the playoffs. He also doesn’t pitch a lot of innings.

    I realize that two starts is nothing, but a great pitcher and your ace shouldn’t pitch like that in the biggest game of the season two years in a row.

    He is no Santana and he is no Sabathia.

    If we refused to give up the talent for Santana, it would be unwise to give it up for a lesser pitcher.

    • steve (different one) says:

      I realize that two starts is nothing, but a great pitcher and your ace shouldn’t pitch like that in the biggest game of the season two years in a row.

      this is a strange comment considering Sabathia’s performance in the playoffs the last 2 years.

      • Shit, it’s a strange comment considering 150 years of baseball history.

        The list of great pitchers who struggled in their first two or three postseason games before righting the ship and getting better is a mile long.

        Sample size.

      • dave says:

        no but i would cite the fact that CC pitched on 3 days rest 3 or 4 times in a row to get the Brewers to the postseason, something Peavy can’t do and wont do.

        In fact, the last of those games he went a complete game with 4 hits and 0 ER

        I agree with the fact that he has not been himself in his playoff starts, but I find that CC is much more of a big game pitcher. The way he threw down the stretch was both selfless and masterful.

        • dave says:

          and why do we want a pitcher who barely goes 7 innings?

          Does that qualify as an ace? A pitcher who barely reaches 200 innings some years shouldn’t be your #1 and isnt worth the haul of young prospects that it will take to get him.

          Injury concerns for Sabathia are fair considering his workload in recent years, but it hasn’t seemed to slow him down so far. At least you know that if hes healthy he can give you well over 200 innings.

          Regardless of CC, I dont believe that Peavy is the answer to any of our problems.

          • Steve S says:

            you want to make an argument that Peavy is injury prone thats one thing. Peavy has pitched 200 innings the same amount of times CC has and he has been in the league for less time than CC. Enough with this innings argument, the years that kid has been healthy, he has surpassed 200 innings. Its really within the last two years that CC has become this “horse”.

            • dave says:

              That’s a fair argument. I didn’t realize that CC really didnt throw this much until 2007. However, with both pitchers in their prime, CC is clearly able to throw a lot more innings, helping the team that much more.

              I agree with you that Peavy is an excellent pitcher but for some reason I find Sabathia to be more durable and a better teammate. I know intangibles are sometimes stupid to quantify but it does mean something that CC was willing to go out on short rest multiple times to get the Brewers into the playoffs, a team that he knew he wouldnt even be on next year.

              If we have to choose between the two, do we want a pitcher who can barely pitch 200 innings in a weak NL West who we have to give up our prized prospects for?

              Or do we want a pitcher who has recently put his team before himself and led them into the playoffs and will cost us only money and no players?

              That is my point.

              • Steve S says:

                Agreed CC > Peavy. But i dont think CC or Peavy is exclusive decision. Peavy allows them to get a young starter at an affordable price sign through his premium years and it doesnt prevent them from signing CC. And is a little insurance for developing Joba and investing $160M in a 300lb guy. We can have both.

            • Jake Peavy’s three 200+ IP seasons:
              ’05: 203.0
              ’06: 202.3
              ’07: 223.3

              CC Sabathia’s thrww 200+ IP seasons:
              ’02: 210.0
              ’07: 241.0
              ’08: 253.0

              Not exactly the same thing. Furthermore, outside of those above seasons, Peavy has only broken 175 IP in one other year (194.7 IP in ’03), with two years where he didn’t make it to 175 (’04 and ’08; i’m not penalizing him for his rookie year since he spent time in the minors).

              Sabathia’s non 200+ IP seasons:
              ’01: 180.3
              ’03: 197.7
              ’04: 188.0
              ’05: 196.7
              ’06: 192.7

              Saying that “Peavy and Sabathia both have the same number of 200 IP seasons” is misleading, since Sabathia has three more seasons where he was within a hair’s breadth of 200.

              Also, Jake Peavy: 6 career complete games. CC Sabathia: 26 career complete games.

              Look, Jake Peavy is an ace, I’m not saying he’s not. And, he’s fairly durable. But he’s not a horse in CC’s class. He’s just not.

              • Steve S says:

                I never said Peavy was the same caliber of “horse”. Rather Im saying I keep on seeing people make bones about his durability or that he barely a 7 inning pitcher.

                But CC really just developed this reputation within the past two seasons, prior to that he was consistent for 30 starts but would miss 3-5 starts every year. And the innings and complete games might be more of a function of the team they play on and the managerial style. Name Cleveland’s closer/bullpen arms for the past six years and then look how well Kevin Towers builds a bullpen and consider both Boche and Black’s commitment to Trevor Hoffman.

                And I dont think that Peavy is an alternative to CC rather he is a supplement.

                • And I’m saying that you’re overblowing this “they only started considering him a horse two years ago” argument.

                  CC’s been in the league since 2001. He’s only made fewer than 30 starts once (28 in 2006) and he’s never ever thrown fewer than 180 innings.

                  His games started totals:
                  ’01 – 33
                  ’02 – 33
                  ’03 – 30
                  ’04 – 30
                  ’05 – 31
                  ’06 – 28
                  ’07 – 34
                  ’08 – 35

                  Considering that in a 5 man rotation you line up for either 33 or 32 starts a year, that means that in the first two and last two seasons of his career, he didn’t miss a start (and, in fact, threw extra starts on short rest) and in the middle four seasons, he missed, what, one or two turns in the rotation each year, tops? He’s missed like, 5 or six starts in 8 years and he “wasn’t considered a horse” until 2007?

                  Come on, now. He’s been considered a horse for quite some time now.

                • Steve S says:

                  Tommie look at the numbers- between 03-06 he had little injuries that held him back from making all his starts and pitching over 200 innings. Typically when youre an ace you get 34-35 starts a year because you skip the five spot when the schedule allows

                  I dont want to stir this hornets nest but look a Santana’s innings load over the last five years. Thats a horse (which by the way shows that the “complete game” does not accurately assess a pitchers ability to log innings but rather shows that a team might just have a great closer). Look at David Wells from 1996-2000. Mike Mussina in his prime was a horse.

                  CC is a horse but I dont know how you can possibly say that the last two years have nothing to do with him earning that title. Without his last two years he is a 300lb man who has had nagging muscle injuries that have prevented him from getting the ball every five days and pitching 200 innings in a season except for one.

                • I’m not saying that the last two years have nothing to do with him earning the title, just saying it’s not weighted as heavily as you’re weighting it.

                  Look, we’ve gone WELL beyond semantics and nuance here, we’re arguing shading. We’re talking about 31 starts vs’ 34. Let’s put it to bed, already… tomato, tomahto.

                  CC = really good.
                  Peavy = really good.


                • Steve S says:

                  Im not ready to let this one go yet.

                  If the guy makes 30 starts and throws 191 innings the last two years do you call him a horse still? I mean this is completely subjective but I would hold that title back. And to be honest, I think everyone is giving him that title because he is fat and because he did what he did this past September.

                  Now I feel as thought I have not been given the tomahto side of the argument.

                  Where is Steve(different one) when I need him?

                • Here’s why I let it go:

                  I don’t care whether he goes 30 starts and 189 innings or 32 starts and 205 innings. I don’t care which of those things is “horselike” and which isn’t.

                  I just feel confident that CC can give me somewhere north of 27 starts and 175 innings of quality baseball, probably well north of that, because he’s done it every year of his career and looks totally healthy, and I want that, because I’ve only had 4 man-seasons of that the past three years (’08 Moose, ’07 Wang, ’06 Moose, ’06 Wang.)

                  Can Peavy do that too? Perhaps. But he hasn’t done that as much as Sabathia has (or in the league that Sabathia’s in). He’s made fewer starts, pitched fewer innings, and gone less deep into games than CC has, and he’s also smaller with a more violent delivery. I don’t know where the magical “horse” line that we wasted hours persing over is, I just know that CC is either closer to reaching or has cleared and overtaken it more than Peavy has, and I worry about him less going forward.

                  So, maybe he’s not a horse, maybe he’s a pack-mule. I don’t care, call it what you want. I just want his 28-35 starts and 180-240 innings happening here for us.

                • Having said all that, I just thought of one HUGE hole in our discussion that strengthens your case for Peavy:

                  Peavy likely throws fewer innings than Sabathia would because he’s in the NL, where he’s frequently lifted for a hitter. Since Sabathia never bats, they’re never forced to remove him in the 7th or 8th when a prime offensive opportunity arises.

                  If they both made the same number of starts with basically equal rate stats, I’d expect Peavy to have thrown fewer innings, so his “horse”ness is likely artificially held down by being in a non-DH league, FWIW.

                  Whatever. I still want Santana more than Peavy.

                • “I don’t know where the magical “horse” line that we wasted hours persing parsing over is…”

                • Steve S says:

                  You mean Sabathia? Was that a fraudian slip.

                • Steve S says:


                • Yeah, no, sorry, meant to say Sabathia.

                  Yeah, I know, I messed up, SHUTUP!!!!

              • Steve S says:

                And I did qualify my original point by saying that Peavy being injury prone might be a concern but the comment was in response to the fact that “Dave” made 200 innings the magic mark of an ace.

                • Mike Pop says:

                  This was an EPIC argument and could of made history

                • dave says:

                  Wow. I didn’t say that 200 innings was the mark of an ace. A consistent 200 innings pitcher who dominates is more valuable than a dominating pitcher who goes 170. This is the same argument as the Joba starter vs. reliever. You want your best players to play as much as possible. “Steve S”, don’t take my quotes out of context.

  11. Mike says:

    “It all boils down to the contract. Peavy is owed a little over $60 million over the next four seasons (with a $22 million option for 2013). For a pitcher just entering his pitching prime, that’s a relative steal.”

    It seems that he would almost certainly require an extension if traded to the Yankees. I think that changes the contract situation atleast slightly.

    • Steve says:

      His contract is good, but “steal” is going too far. If Peavy was to hit the open market he would command a salary of around 18-22 per, and is scheduled to earn 8 next year and then average 16 per after that. Good, but not great contract. He’s earning good money after next year.

      And the players you would be dealing would be the real “steals” if they perform to MLB average or better, since they would be young players earning nothing. If Hughes pitches like the #2 scouts think he will be, then he’s a $17 mil pitcher earning the MLB minimum. If the relievers perform, they would be $5-6 mil a piece. Towers would be the one getting the steal, that’s the whole point of trading Peavy for lesser/unproven players.

  12. Marty Puccio says:

    “I’m not opposed to seeing Ian Kennedy go in a potential deal; I’d be less thrilled to see Phil Hughes go; and I wouldn’t include both of them — or Robinson Cano by himself — in one trade.”

    – Every Yankee fan wants to suggest trades without giving up anything. The Pads will never take a package centered around Ian Kennedy. Its absurd. Peavy is an absolute stud, possibly the best pitcher in the NL. It’ll take a package such as Hughes, Melancon, and Montero to get him. And I say do it. Gotta give up value to get value, people.

    • Even Hughes, Melancon, and Montero won’t be enough. Melancon is a reliever, which severely curtails his trade value. And Montero, while he’s an excellent bat, is still years away from contributing and hasn’t yet shown he can hit at the upper levels of the minors.

      That won’t cut it.

      More like Hughes, Cano, McAllister and Laird. And that’s too much for me to part with. Towers won’t deal Peavy without getting back at least two legit arms, and since we only have one legit arm we’d be willing to do (Hughes, since Joba is off limits), the second arm would have to be swapped for a quality bat. Cano is the only thing we’ve got there.

      That’s what people need to realize: Hughes, Cano, Joba, and Austin Jackson are the only “quality” guys we’ve got, now that IPK’s coming off a bad year. We’ve got tons and tons of other high-ceiling guys, but they’re all so young that teams won’t gamble on them a ton. So, we’re not getting Peavy without giving up both Hughes and Cano. Doesn’t matter how many Monteros, Melancons, Betanceses, Sanchezes, or Romines you put in there… it starts with Hughes and Cano for ANY ace pitcher you’d like to trade for.

  13. Justin says:

    I think what we are losing in all of this is that the Padres are just keeping us in it to drive up the price that the Braves or Cubs pay for him. If he doesnt like NY then so be it. Let him stay in the NL. I think another thing people are losing in all of this as well is that there is already a pitcher in the AL who is 4 years younger and who we could give an extension to for far less that what we could to Peavy. His Name? Zach Greinke. I think we should offer the Royals A Jax who I think is another one of those prospects that the yanks have overhyped. A Jax is a .280 hitter who strikes out way too much right now. He will hit for some power but it wont be for more than 15 or 20 homers a year. He is overhyped so trade him while his value is high.

    So if I am Cash i say screw the Padres because Towers is just using us like all other teams do and go to KC and ask their GM what it would take to get Zach.

    I would be willing to send IPK, AJax, Montero/Romine, and Aceves or Robertson to KC and I think they would do it. Especially if we gave them Aceves and D Rob

  14. mustang says:

    I think of all the threads written here I could not disagree more then with this one.
    Are you kidding? Where do I start?

    1-”the Santana deal didn’t make sense to us then, and we have no regrets.”
    Well you should because with Santana on the team the Yanks make the playoff and God knows how much more.

    2-”Unlike with Santana, a team acquiring Peavy wouldn’t be paying for just one year; they’d be trading away for four or five years of a pitcher.”
    Yes, but your forgetting a contract extension will be needed for a player who really doesn’t want to come to NY and who agent is comparing him to CC.

    3- Stat. Put up as many numbers as you like they are all in the NL and the NL west of all places. Have we not learned anything about pitchers coming from the NL to AL?

    4- Johan Santana Jake Peavy
    2003 12-3 /158 IP 3.07 2003 12-11 / 194 IP 4.11
    2004 20-6 / 228 IP 2.61 2004 15-6/ 166 IP 2.27
    2005 16-7/231 IP 2.87 2005 13-7/203IP 2.88
    2006 19-6/233 IP 2.77 2006 11-14/ 202 IP 4.09
    2007 15-13/219 IP 3.33 2007 19-6/ 223 IP 2.54
    2008 16-7/ 234 IP 2.53 2008 10-11/ 173 IP 2.85

    Johan Santana LEFT-HANDED, AL CY Young, 2.05 ERA at Yankees Stadium, 3.40 ERA vs. Boston and .250 BAA, and who by all accounts welcomed playing for the Yankees.

    This was easier then Obama win last night.

    • mustang says:

      4- Johan Santana
      2003 12-3 /158 IP 3.07
      2004 20-6 / 228 IP 2.61
      2005 16-7/231 IP 2.87
      2006 19-6/233 IP 2.77
      2007 15-13/219 IP 3.33
      2008 16-7/ 234 IP 2.53

      • mustang says:

        Jake Peavy
        2003 12-11 / 194 IP 4.11
        2004 15-6/ 166 IP 2.27
        2005 13-7/203IP 2.88
        2006 11-14/ 202 IP 4.09
        2007 19-6/ 223 IP 2.54
        2008 10-11/ 173 IP 2.85

        • steve (different one) says:

          i don’t disagree that Santana is the better pitcher.

          but there is a difference of like $75M here that we can’t overlook. i don’t think Peavy would get a new contract if he was traded, that just doesn’t happen in baseball. the Yankees might guarantee his option or tack on another year, but they aren’t going to trade prospects and then tear up his contract and give him a Sabathia/Santana type contract.

          what if the Yankees signed Sabathia AND traded Hughes for Peavy AND used the difference in Santana and Peavy’s contract to sign someone like Holliday next year or put it towards Teixeira??

          you have to look at the overall picture, and it is very possible to come out ahead OVERALL by passing on Santana.

          what if they could have Sabathia, Peavy and Holliday for the same overall dollars as just having Santana and Sabathia??

          • mustang says:

            There are a lot of what if in your argument and to me one of the biggest factors is that Peavy has never pitched in the AL. The Yankees are just a fall back position for him.
            What if the Yankees got Santana and after God know what in 2008 they were now biding for Sabathia too?
            The money argument never washes with the Yankees.

            • steve (different one) says:

              What if the Yankees got Santana and after God know what in 2008 they were now biding for Sabathia too?

              yeah, maybe.

              i’m not saying my thinking is “right”, just outlining a potential strategy.

              still, in my mind, if they do sign Sabathia, they still have Hughes to make a trade to improve them elsewhere. i don’t think think this basic idea is without merit. just as i don’t think your idea of trading for Santana is without merit.

            • Steve S says:

              Of course it does. Thats ridiculous. They could never offer Sabathia a bigger contract than Johan if Johan was on the team for the same reasons that your stating here. These guys are baseball players and have they have major egos. Of course its a possibility, in the hypothetical, but its much much more likely that if they had Johan they would be much bigger into Burnett and Lowe to supplement him. The money argument isnt a wash, they were at $220M this year, with Johan they would have been closer to $240M. They would have $160M committed before arbitration going into this year. They have two corner outfield spots opening up next year, first base open now and they may need a shortstop in two years. The concept that they would have two pitchers in their rotation making combined more than $300M would cripple them in filling any of these holes.

              And thats without mentioning the fact that they have another $319M tied up long term at third base, catcher (which may be another opening in 2010) and closer. Thats pie in the sky stuff, they cant plug every hole with the $100M. Its just not a reality. Lets think back to 2005- Randy Johnson vs. Carlos Beltran- money wasnt a wash then and they made the wrong decision, which then culminated in a 4 year contract and another $50M for Johnny Damon, which hasnt been awful but you paid good amount and have an extra year so the guy could play CF for a season and a half. Long term contracts given based on necessity for one year usually result in more bad contracts or gaping holes in your lineup.

    • mustang says:

      “Why Jake Peavy isn’t like Johan Santana”
      I agree with that.

    • Steve S says:

      Mustang- you know I was with you on this that the Santana non-trade wasnt a slam dunk BUT we have established this this trade cant be evaluated one year later because there was no earthly possibility that Phil Hughes or Ian Kennedy would out perform Johan. Also, the premise that they would have made the playoffs this year with Johan is really not accurate. Would they have had a better chance? Of course but to say that Johan would have meant an additional five or six wins is difficult to prove especially when it was the offense sputtered this year.

      And the Peavy issue asside. Lets say the Yankees sign CC Sabathia and he gives you a good year next year, lets say

      CC Sabathia- 215 innings, 18 wins, a 130 ERA+, 200K

      And lets just say Phil starts the year at AAA and then comes up and he does

      Hughes- 110 innings, 6 wins, a 4.50 ERA and 110 ERA +

      And thats a fair estimate, the only variable being his health which right now has been a concern but has never been an arm issue which even Joba cant say.

      Are the Yankees then better off for next year, AS well as the the next 5.

      Now, you cant say the same thing if they acquire Johan because odds are if they hand out the contract to Johan last year, they most likely dont invest another $160M in CC. And the same argument can be applied to Peavy now. If the Yankees make the Johan trade then the Peavy conversations are a non-starter.

      Baseball has complex economic angles to consider when properly building a team. Its not a video game, you cant simply say Ill take the best player for next year and not worry about anything beyond that.

      Peavy is not the better pitcher, but he is two years younger and is infinitely more affordable. Its difficult to compare the pitchers. But the analysis that the guy is pitching in Petco in the NL west is only part of the analysis. You have to look at his stuff, thats why guys like Beckett or even Burnett can translate in the AL east and yes they cant be as dominant but they are still very very good.

      • mustang says:

        I disagree on two points:
        1-”Also, the premise that they would have made the playoffs this year with Johan is really not accurate. Would they have had a better chance”
        Take out 0-8 add 16-7 or more with the Yanks pen and your chances are more than good.

        2-”if they hand out the contract to Johan last year, they most likely dont invest another $160M in CC”
        All that money coming of the books, a new Stadium, and a chance to have two superior AL- LEFT-HANDED starter for the next 6 years that’s too much to pass up.
        Like I said above the money thing never washes for the Yankees.

        • Steve S says:

          See above on the money argument, its completely wrong.

          Second, its not that simple, first of all the 0-8 is completely unfair- he only fills one rotation spot so lets take Hughes who was 0-4. he started 8 games, which the Yankees one three of (he just had no decisions).

          Im not saying they arent a better team but I still dont know that they make the playoffs, considering the fact that allowed 50 less runs and scored almost two hundred runs less than the year before.

        • Steve S says:

          And Im with you on the Santana thing, it wasnt that clear of decision as some people make it out to be but its really unfair and a poor argument when you point to Hughes’ and Kennedy’s results this year and somehow tie it into the fact that they missed the playoffs.

          Especially considering the fact that they lost their best pitcher, catcher(and big bat in the lineup), their second baseman took a huge step back, and the CF turned into an offensive black hole.

          I could argue a healthy Cheng Ming Wang and Melky’s 2007 gets them into the playoffs easier than one pitcher getting them in.

    • Chris C. says:

      “Well you should because with Santana on the team the Yanks make the playoff and God knows how much more”

      The deal not made for Santana wasn’t meant to be evaluated now. In 2-3 years, Santana may be on his way down making a fortune, and Hughes may be a stud at 25, on his way up. Yes, Santana is great right now, but stop assuming the GM should strictly be building for the present.
      Evaluate that deal that wasn’t made down the road, because that’s why it wasn’t made.
      I don’t see anything wrong with the Yankees plan of moving forward now, considering the “just grab any big FA that’s available and drain the system” plan they’ve had in the past only seemed to create a bigger payroll, and more holes in the team.

      “Yes, but your forgetting a contract extension will be needed for a player who really doesn’t want to come to NY and who agent is comparing him to CC.”

      I agree…….we need to stop overpaying players who don’t want to be here. It shows in their production, and probably in the clubhouse as well.

      • mustang says:

        “The deal not made for Santana wasn’t meant to be evaluated now. In 2-3 years, Santana ”

        I understand this, but all I have to work with right now is the one year where the Yankees got more hurt by the deal then helped. Your right time will tell.

  15. Bo says:

    Are we forgetting he had an elbow problem last yr and has a violent motion?

    He’ll be a Brave soon anyway.

  16. Justin says:

    Just go get Greinke and call it a day. Peavy is a joke. He doesnt want to be here to so who cares. Let his ace walk away. Greinke would be cheaper for the next 5 years anyway.

    • steve (different one) says:

      sure, but he’s also not as good as Peavy. and not as available. and Peavy has said he would play for the Yankees.

      • Chip says:

        Actually he’ll be on the block if the Royals can’t sign him to a long-term deal according to MLBTR. I don’t know what he’d be worth but I’d be fine with him on this team

        • steve (different one) says:

          perhaps, perhaps. but Peavy WILL be traded this off-season. we know that much.

          the Royals don’t HAVE to trade Greinke unless they are blown away. they could trade him mid-season. or next off-season….

          • Reggie C. says:

            Didn’t the KC GM already state that he wants the Royals to seriously compete next season? I’m 99% sure he said that. Greinke isn’t and shouldn’t go anywhere. Lets see him put up another healthy & impressive 200 inning season.

            He’s not a kid so he’s not as vulnerable to the dreaded innings jump as guys 3-4 yrs younger. Its about time KC got serious and its time for them to emerge to respectability.

    • Greinke wouldn’t cost that much less than Peavy anyway.

      And do you really want to bring a 25 year old kid with clinical depression and social anxiety disorder to New York City? He quit baseball for a year.

  17. Chas says:

    No to Peavy he will only go to the Yankees if we pay him like Johan. He has a no trade clause. This could be a collosal failure. Look at his career splits! He pitches in the NL at PETCO Park! No Peavy! Free Agents or Kids under team control!

  18. ko says:

    One would think that the free agent pitchers would have to shake out before anyone commits big time to Peavy, but you never know. For example, if the Yankees were to miss out on Sabbathia, Burnett and Sheets, then you would think they’d be very interested. Until then, why trade away prospects or useful established players? As far as the Santana thing. I’m not sure the Yankees were ever seriously in the running for him – from the Twins point of view. I think the Twins were probably trying to steal Lester from the Red Sox by feigning interest in what the Yankees had to offer – trying to panic the Sox into a bad trade. I think the the Twins, who have a way of judging talent, had the Yankees prospects Hughes, Kennedy and Cabrera correctly pegged as overhyped and the Red Sox prospects of Lester, Lowrie, Ellsbury, and Masterson as a much stronger group. So I wouldn’t be so upset about the Yankees not getting Santana last winter – I doubt if it would have ever happened – if the Twins ever got close to making a deal with New York, Boston would have trumped them.

    • I was with you wholeheartedly, until you said “I think the the Twins, who have a way of judging talent, had the Yankees prospects Hughes, Kennedy and Cabrera correctly pegged as overhyped and the Red Sox prospects of Lester, Lowrie, Ellsbury, and Masterson as a much stronger group.

      Wrong. The Twins were high on Hughes and Kennedy, as they should have been; they’re both great prospects. Lester is better than either of those two. Lowrie, Ellsbury, and Masterson are not. If they preferred the Red Sox package of those two that you listed (neither of which were likely ever on the table), it’s only because it was headlined by Lester, who’s much more established than any of the other above names.

      Simply, the Twins didn’t deal Santana to either the Yankees or Red Sox primarily because both those teams are in the AL, and the Twins charged us a premium.

  19. [...] to Ken Rosenthal, the Yanks and Padres held “numerous discussions” about Jake Peavy during the GM meetings. Supposedly, the Braves and Cubs, Peavy’s top two destinations, are [...]

  20. [...] Towers doesn’t believe he can work out a deal between his team and the Cubs or Braves for Jake Peavy. So the Yankees and Angels may be next in line. Meanwhile, David Pinto believes the Yanks could [...]

  21. [...] of young players that may or may not include Carlos Gonzalez, Huston Street and Greg Smith. Is Jake Peavy next? Who [...]

  22. [...] about the popular trade ideas, including why I’m uncomfortable with giving up Phil Hughes for Jake Peavy, and an available starter I wouldn’t mind getting, but will probably get me pelted with [...]

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.