Yanks chances on Peavy increase? Sabathia to the Angels?

PA: Yanks, Mets may compete...
What about Swish?

The New York writers have kept themselves busy over this past week, running the floor to bring us rumor after rumor from the GM meetings. While we know that the bulk of these rumors mean little or nothing, we still like to toss them around and drop our two cents. Today, we get some peeps about the Yankees pitching targets, namely Jake Peavy and CC Sabathia.

We’ll start with Peavy. Mark Feinsand has a tidbit on the Padres righty:

The Yankees could put together a package built around Phil Hughes and Austin Jackson, according to a source, although they would likely have to include two or three more players, one of which could be Ian Kennedy. The Padres, according to the source, have no interest in Robinson Cano.

As always, beware the anonymous source. Yes, the Yankees could do that, but there’s only a small chance they will. It would mean talks have been exhausted with all NL teams, and even then the Yankees would likely have to add dollars and/or years to Peavy’s contract. He’s not going to waive his no trade clause for nothing, as he’s made clear through his agent Barry Axelrod.

The tireless Ken Davidoff says this won’t happen. Then again, he also said that the chances of Moose coming back is one percent, so we should get a chance soon to gauge his predictive accuracy. He also puts the kibosh on the Matsui to Seattle rumor, which sounded pretty frivolous from the outset. Now, if he could only kill those Lowe rumors.

Not everything is sunshiny for the Yanks, though. Davidoff brings up a scenario under which the Angels could snatch up CC Sabathia, even if the Yankees are the high bidders. It would start with the Angels letting Mark Teixeira walk. While that’s not a highly likely scenario, word is from Terry Reagins’s lips that the team won’t wait around forever awaiting his decision.

So how could the Angels then get CC without being the high bidder? If they top the $137.5 million, six-year contract signed by Johan Santana last winter, Sabathia could be content. We’ve talked about the pressure from the union to take top dollar, but the pressure might not be as intense if CC raises the bar for pitcher salaries. The union might raise a stink if CC wants to take a six year, $120 million offer from the Angels when a six year, $140 million deal is on the table from the Yankees. But if the Yankees are offering $150 million and the Angels are offering $140, he might take the slightly lower, yet still record-breaking, salary to play on the West Coast.

All of this is to say that we have no freaking clue how this off-season is going to pan out. Plenty of people say they are “convinced” CC will be a Yank. Others (::cough:: Mike Pop) think Burnett in pinstripes is inevitable. However, there is no sure thing during the Hot Stove.

email
PA: Yanks, Mets may compete...
What about Swish?
  • Slugger27

    the requirements to get peavy just seem to keep getting higher and higher… ajax, hughes, IPK, and more money…. i know peavys a great pitcher but sheesh

    itd be nice to see him in pinstripes, i just cant help but think the price is getting too steep even for the desperate yankees

    • radnom

      Depends. Does he want a Santana-esque contract or is he just looking for a nice little pay increase?
      If the latter is the case I think a Hughes-Ajax-IPK centered trade, while hard to swallow, is still one you have to make. That leaves enough left over to still go get CC.
      Could you imagine a rotation of CC, Wang, Peavy, Joba NEXT year? That core would be in place for a long time too.

      • Bill R

        It would be really tough to swallow that trade especially given Ajax is a part of it. But I think a center fielder would be easier to find that has Ajax potential then it is to find a pitcher with peavy’s talent.

        • radnom

          I would actually be more upset about Hughes.

      • Chris C.

        If the latter is the case I think a Hughes-Ajax-IPK centered trade, while hard to swallow, is still one you have to make. That leaves enough left over to still go get CC.

        GET REAL! Those three prospects for a guy who grew up in a small Alabama town, pitched his whole career in laid back San Diego, and has little to no desire to pitch in a large media city?
        Haven’t we seen how that plays out before? No thanks.

  • Simon B.

    I don’t really have confidence in Peavy to come over and be more than “a little bit above-average”. Petco is more than just a pitcher’s ballpark, it’s like a different league—that in addition he’s already pitching in the weakest division without the DH.

    Hold on to Hughes, please.

    • radnom

      If you think Peavy would be nothing but “a little bit above average” here then you are a fool.

      I hope he stays in the NL though.

      • Yankee1010

        I wouldn’t call him a fool for thinking that. To think that he is going to jump from Petco and the NL West as a flyball pitcher to Yankee Stadium with a short RF porch and the much better AL East and rip it up is insane.

        • radnom

          Wow, you instantly discredited yourself by calling Peavy a “flyball pitcher”.
          Could not be more incorrect if you were trying.

          I didn’t say he would “rip it up”, obviously he wouldn’t maintain that 2.5 era in the AL east, but he damn well wouldn’t be “just above average” either.

          • Yankee1010

            Oh, really? Considering Peavy’s career groundball/flyball ratio is 1.13 he is much closer to being a “flyball” pitcher as opposed to a “groundball” pitcher. Do you care to support your arguments with, um, you know, facts? No, right? You prefer to hang with the Flat Earth guys.

            So, when you said, he was a “fool” for thinking Peavy would only be a “little bit above average” in the AL East, you were not saying he would at least be significantly above average? You weren’t saying that? I’m sorry if I’m using too much logic and deductive reasoning for you. Tell me if I’m going too fast for you.

            • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

              No need to be a prick, especially when you’re wrong.

              How is a guy who induces more groundballs than flyballs anything close to a flyball pitcher? A guy who gives up more flyballs than groundballs can be considered a flyball pitcher. If he has a 1:1 ratio, he’d be a neutral pitcher, wouldn’t you agree? so if that ratio is greater than 1:1, even as little as 1.13:1, you might not call him a GB pitcher, but he’s certainly NOT a flyball pitcher.

              • Yankee1010

                First, who really was the prick to being with?

                Second, no, you’re wrong. It is generally accepted that a 1.00 ratio is considered a flyball pitcher ratio. Anything over a 1.5 is considered a groundball pitcher ratio.

                Third, I’ll amend it to “significantly closer to being a flyball pitcher than a groundball pitcher”. Crisis averted.

                Plus, it’s so wonderful when people deal in absolutes.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Yankee1010 is right. Jake Peavy is a flyball pitcher. It’s slight, but he’s definitely more flyball than groundball.

                  Most pitchers have the slight majority of the balls batted into play against them hit as grounders. True “groundball” pitchers have the OVERWHELMING majority of their pitches hit as grounders, something like a 2 or 3 to 1 ratio of groundballs to flyballs.

                  Actually, “flyball” pitcher is a bit of a misnomer, in that “flyball” pitchers give up basically an equal amount of groundballs and flyballs. Look at the fangraphs page of Peavy and contrast it to Webb, Halladay, CMW, etc. There’s really no such thing as a “flyball” pitcher, just a groundball pitcher or a non-groundball pitcher.

                  http://baseballanalysts.com/ar.....g_pi_3.php

                • Simon B.

                  GB/FB ratio seems like a pretty ineffective statistic to begin with considering it doesn’t factor in line drives. GB% seems like the one to use. Peavy has an average one at 42%. Not good, not bad.

                  Perhaps, I was exaggerating a little when I said he would only be “a little bit above-average”, but I can say with 98% certainty that he wouldn’t be regarded anywhere close to an ace in the AL East. 3.80-4.20 ERA would be my guess. Burnett might be a good comparison. I think Hughes could match or exceed that within the next three years, not even considering the money aspect or giving up Cano or Jackson or Kennedy.

              • radnom

                Thanks Joe. I’m not sure why the assertion that Peavy would all of a sudden turn into a mediocre pitcher if he came here gets me a comparison to a flat-earther.
                Its not like all of Peavy’s outs are balls that died on the warning track at Petco. Youre talking about a guy who gave up 13 HR in a 220 inning season.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones
                • Yankee1010

                  And Peavy gave up 17 HRs last year, 4 at home in 98 IP and 13 on the road in 75 and 2/3 IP. It would seem that some might actually have died on the track in the extreme pitcher’s park.

                • http://www.riveraveblues.com Joseph P.

                  You’re also totally ignoring the fact that nearly every pitcher in the majors pitches better at home, regardless of park.

                  Ubaldo Jiminez, Jeff Francis, Bronson Arroyo — all pitch in extreme hitters parks, but pitched better at home than on the road. Guys like Edinson Volquez and Dice-K, guys who pitch in hitters parks and pitch better on the road, seem to be the exception.

                • Mike Pop

                  http://riveraveblues.com/2008/.....ent-198506

                  lmao thats good man for real

            • radnom

              “little bit above average” in the AL East, you were not saying he would at least be significantly above average? You weren’t saying that? I’m sorry if I’m using too much logic and deductive reasoning for you. Tell me if I’m going too fast for you

              Again…the whole being like a prick thing when you’re wrong….might want to watch that….

              There is a difference between a 2.50 ERA and significantly above average.
              Yes, he would be significantly above average. No he would not be Roger Clemens in his prime good. Thanks for the hostile tone though.

              • Yankee1010

                As has been established, with wow, actual, you know, proof, I am NOT wrong.

                I’m not going to waste any more of my time going at it with you. You’re not going to listen, understand or use little things like “facts”, so it’s useless.

                Hey pot. I’m kettle. You’re welcome.

                • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

                  Okay, dude, I agreed with you, but you’re still acting like a douche. I’m not going to parse who started it, but everyone should knock it off already.

                • Yankee1010

                  Hey, I never said I wasn’t being a prick to him. All I said was that he was a prick to Simon B. and didn’t have anything to back it up. If he wants to act like a douchetard, then he should act all grownz up if he’s going to get crap for it.

              • Simon B.

                ““little bit above average” in the AL East, you were not saying he would at least be significantly above average? You weren’t saying that? I’m sorry if I’m using too much logic and deductive reasoning for you. Tell me if I’m going too fast for you”

                You should probably work on your phrasing because I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Unfortunately, the world cannot benefit from your fantastic “deductive reasoning” because your articulation is so poor that nobody can understand you.

                Just factoring park factors into Peavy’s ERA would bring his ERA up around 3.40 at Yankee Stadium. Petco is by far the biggest pitching park in the majors and it has been each of the last four years. Add in DH and you get 3.70-3.90. Add in that the AL East the best division and the NL West is the worst division by far, and well…you get the idea. Burnett is probably a better pitcher (better stuff, better peripherals) and he’ll cost less money, and less years, and LESS VITAL PLAYERS.

                • Yankee1010

                  Simon, it’s unclear because it was not quoted in full. I believe that’s the cause of the confusion.

                  I agree with you, Peavy is nowhere near what people think he is.

  • Steve S

    This is going to get so annoying. I hope the CC thing doesn’t drag out because he seems to be the the first domino that will allow everything else to fall into place.
    Angels arent going to offer that much to CC, think about it they had more than enough prospects to get Santana but didnt even lift a finger because of the contract extension. And not to mention the fact that these guys know how to develop pitching.

    • Mike Pop

      Also Johan had a NTC and wanted to stay on east coast.. That is why he was against going to Seattle also

      • Kay Sturns

        with saunders and santana being pretty promising, they’ll most def need some money down the line. (don’t know service times) and Lackey in line for one more contract, all they really need is a back of the rotation guy to take over for garland.
        On the other hand, they could probably end up paying less for CC than Tex and have Kendry play first.

  • radnom

    Tommy, I’m concered about your improper use of interrobangs.

    ?

    THAT
    is an interrobang.

    Take note.

    • radnom

      Fuck you comment system. It came up fine in the preview, now I look like an idiot.

      ? ? ? ?

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....ng.svg.png

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        I know, I tried to do that myself once before. The WordPress software will do tildes, accents marks, all sorts of diacriticals, but not the interrobang symbol.

        It sucks. Kudos for trying, though.

        • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

          And please, it’s tommie.

  • Reggie C.

    If we’re talking about Hughes, IPK, Jackson, and Suttle(?), then i can see Cashman being tempted for sure. I included Suttle’s name b/c his pedigree and potential is pretty decent.

    For a second, assuming the Peavy trade did happen, it shouldn’t deter the brass from chasing Sabathia. One thing doesn’t have anything to do with the other. Landing both guys represent a unique opportunity to put on paper the best rotation in baseball.

    We’re definitely forced to acquire an OF after next season with A-jax gone, and the pitching depth falls onto the shoulders of Aceves, Horne, Geise, and Coke (you make him a starter again). YET, we KEEP cano and KEEP pressure off Joba’s shoulders to assume the ace mantle.

    • Brian

      I have to say that all this chattah has made me increasingly comfortable with (or resigned to) the prospect of Hughes being traded.

      Hughes plus A-Jax and Kennedy is a lot, but when you have a shot at CC, Peavy, Wang, Moose?, Pettitte?, Chamberlain in and out…that’s awesome.

      But don’t forget Teixeira. And Manny. And Holliday. Sell Charleston and Trenton. Do it.

      • greg

        have you not learned anything from the past decade?

        • Brian

          So I’m being a bit sarcastic at the end. Sorry that’s not entirely evident. But trading Hughes and A-Jax for Peavy (with Kennedy or not) isn’t crazy.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            “But trading Hughes and A-Jax for Peavy (with Kennedy or not) isn’t crazy.”

            No, it’s not crazy. It’s not wise, but it’s not crazy.

            • Brian

              I agree with your bidness below, there’s just as many reasons or more not to do it. The one abundant reason to do it is that next year we’d have the best rotation in baseball that is still young. I am agreeing with you, but I am tempted nonetheless.

              I just go back to the picks we net through this off-season, waiting on Hughes because it’s worth it, and the lack of cost-controlled position players coming in the farm a la A-Jax. If that’s a more sound wisdom, then, I guess, I’ll try to ignore Jake Peavy being ridiculously good….

  • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

    Also, RSPN is reporting the Dodgers are going to offer Manny either two or three years at 25M per.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3685272

    • Reggie C.

      I wonder if Manny doesn’t take a 3 yr / 75 ML offer from the Dodgers? If he doesn’t , then its over b/w him and LA. I don’t see us offer much more than that, so if Manny turns it down, i can’t help but think he wants to come back East.

      • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

        If LA’s doing 3/75, I’d do 4/100. He wants a longer contract, and we’ll have a DH spot (and a red Sox rivalry, and a better team overall).

  • A.D.

    Mortgaging the farm for a cost-controlled ace doesn’t make sense when there are several high caliber pitcher out there.

    If you trade that package we trade our 1 nearing ML ready position prospect

    • pat

      agreed, throw the loot at cc, sign one of the 2nd tier guys as well and let the farm be.

    • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

      I agree. And you know, I’ve been railing against the signings of Burnett, Sheets, Lowe, and Perez on here for a month, and I’m still against all of them, but I’d sign any of those guys before I’d empty the farm for Peavy.

      Think of it this way: Jake Peavy is an ace. Ben Sheets is also an ace. Both players come with risk: the risk with Jake Peavy is that the players we lose in acquiring him can turn out to be valuable, quality players that we need and have problems replacing. The risk with Sheets is that he never remains healthy enough to keep his ace ability in the rotation. Sheets has a greater injury risk; Peavy has a greater opportunity cost.

      But, if we get CC first, we now have CC, Wang, and Joba as the cornerstones of our rotation, with cavalry still on the way (Hughes, IPK, McAllister, Brackman, Betances, Sanchez, Coke, Bleich, etc); in my opinion, with plenty of quality arms still in the system, I’m more willing to gamble on Sheets breaking down, since we can replace him internally, than I am with giving up numerous quality talents to get Peavy, thus dramatically weakening our ability to fill any holes going forward. (And, we’ll have lots of holes, especially on offense.)

      I know that both Hughes and IPK have great potential, both boom and bust, and that Peavy is an established player. If it were Hughes and IPK for Peavy straight up, then yes, I’d do it. But once you add in Jackson (or Cano) now you’re weakening our already super-thin positional player depth, and if there’s another reasonable alternative out there (as there is), it now becomes the preferable option.

      Signing CC is a must. If CC really prefers Anaheim’s 6/140 to our 6/150, then we need to go to 6/160 or 7/175 or whatever it takes. WHATEVER IT TAKES.

      After that, though:
      Signing Sheets > Signing Moose > Signing Burnett > Signing Lowe > Signing Perez > Trading away three good prospects for Peavy

      • Count Zero

        Agreed…on all counts. Trading away our #1 position prospect at this juncture would be a mistake IMO — we’re just too thin on position players.

      • Thomas

        Personally I’d offer Sheets a deal like 3 years at $16 million annually with two team options at like $19 million.

        Without the options, it is essentially the Lowe deal for a better (but more injury prone) pitcher.
        With the options, it is like the Peavy deal for an inferior, more injury prone pitcher, but we keep our prospects.

        Any thoughts on the Sheets deal? Fair, unfair?

        Obviously also sign CC.

        • Bo

          You’re kidding right?

          In what world would Ben Sheets settle for that?

          Stop throwing dollars out. No one has a clue what teams will offer and what agents will want. None.

          Unless you’re the same guy who thought Carlos Silva would get 11 mil a yr.

          Sheets will be fine and won’t have to take any incentive laden deal.

          • http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CRsmithT1.jpg tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Mr. Snarky Irrelevant Non Sequitur Jones

            Bo, I think you may have been reading too quickly.

            Personally I’d offer Sheets a deal like 3 years at $16 million annually with two team options at like $19 million.

            If Ben Sheets could get a deal from the Yankees where he’d get $48M over the next 3 years and possibly $86M over the next 5 years, he’s leap at that. That’s not “settling” for an “incentive laden deal”, that’s great.

            • Steve

              Yeah, that’s sounds about right for Sheets to me, too.

              I could be dead wrong about it, but I’ve had the impression all off season that there’s less of a market for Sheets than there is for Burnett. That Burnett will wind up getting more $$ and more years.

              I think that’s dumb. Sheets is younger, he’s a slighly better pitcher (less BBs) and he has been more durable over his career than Burnett has been. Sheets has thrown more innings than Burnett in 2 fewer seasons. Though both have certainly been injury prone, Sheets has been less so.

  • Manimal

    Just “show them love” Boras will do the rest.

  • Manimal

    I hope the yankees realize that their are better options in the free agent market than with trades. Sign CC, Sign Lowe/Perez, trade for matsui and sign manny. Dont trade for Peavy or Holliday its just not worth it.

  • Mike Pop

    I printed this, I am proud to be mentioned on a post here

  • Yankees 4ever

    I was listening to the FAN yesterday, heyman was on and he had just spoken with CC’s agent, who told heyman that all things being equal, CC would stay on the West Coast, but that if he was blown away by the Yankees, he would be stupid not to take the Yankees offer. He mentioned that he expects the Yankees to start an offer at 7 years at about $175MM.

    Do you think that would get him, I think so. The starting offer is going to blow every team out of the water and that if he even thinks about accepting the lower offer, the union is going to put so much pressure on him to take the Yankees offer, it will be ridiculous.

  • Ron

    Pete Abe posted that Kevin Towers said the only 3 teams in the running for Peavy are NL teams. Phew! Just reading these posts about giving up Hughes, Ajax etc made me nervous. I agree w/ tommiesmithjohncarlos: there are better (read: cheaper and/or less risky) options available.

  • ortforshort

    I like Burnett over Sheets because he has the higher ceiling. Burnett has ace stuff when he’s healthy (not often enough unfortunately). Sheets isn’t quite that talented. Other than that, if the Yankees end up with either one of them, it will be a good thing – just have to cross our fingers about the injuries.

  • Pingback: Angels getting in on the CC show | River Avenue Blues