Peavy for Braves GM

As a Braves fan, I’m happy that Jake Peavy seems to understand the opportunity cost of giving up an everyday player versus a prospect.

The subject of Escobar came up Thursday morning between Peavy and his agent, Barry Axelrod. Less than 12 hours earlier, Axelrod had met with Padres General Manager Kevin Towers to get an update on trade talks that had taken place the previous three days at the GM meetings in Dana Point.

“Escobar’s a pretty good player,” Axelrod said. “To be honest, Jake and I have said, ‘If that kind of trade gets made, who plays short for them?’”

“One of the things we will want to look at some point is, ‘Who are you giving up? How much are you weakening your team to make this deal?’” Axelrod said. “If Team X trades three starting pitchers and a starting shortstop to get Jake Peavy, that lessens their chance of being a successful team.”

I don’t like the idea of trading Yunel Escobar or Kelly Johnson for Peavy. You improve your pitching, but at the expense of your hitting. It sounds like Peavy wants to play on a winner. Maybe these players can be replaced with free agents in a way that Peavy cannot be, but I am wary of a team that isn’t yet competitive giving up major-league players.

8 Responses “Peavy for Braves GM”

  1. Victor says:

    Plus nobody available can replace Escobar’s defense so you hurt some of your pitching by trading him as well.

  2. Darin H says:

    But if you trade Frenchy for Peavy then you get better on the mound AND in the outfield with whatever MLB average player would replace Jeffy. Come on Peavy, make it happen!

  3. mravery says:

    Furcal can. ‘Course, Furcal plus Peavy will almost certainly cost more per anum than Sabbathia/Escobar… so why not just do that and hold on to Morton, et al.?

  4. themarksmith says:

    I would like to say that Escobar’s name has been brought up in rumors. At this point, we simply don’t know who has really been offered. However, I agree that giving up Escobar and/or Johnson might be a little too much, depending on who else is involved. It comes to point where you might just have to give up on him even though you want him really bad. Bidding on a free-agent or two and/or making a trade for someone like Javier Vazquez may end up being a better option. Again, let’s wait until something happens to really evaluate Wren’s thinking.

  5. Marv Kleeman says:

    A memo to Frank Wren And John Scheurholz. 

    As a “fanatic” Atlanta Braves fan, I beg of you.  Do not make the Jake Peavy trade.  It will be a disaster.  Just walk away from the negotiating table.  I guarantee; you’ll feel better in the morning.

    The definition of “Insanity” – Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.     (Albert Einstein)

    So we want to make a “blockbuster” trade for Jake Peavy?  Well Braves fans.  How did the last “blockbuster” trade work out.  You know, the one where we were leveraged out of five of our top prospects for Mark Teixeira.  And to what end?  We were a .500 team before the Teixeira trade and we were a .500 team after the trade.  

    And to you numbskulls who say we have to give up something to get something in return.  Huh!  The purpose of a trade is to improve the team, not to make an even exchange. 

    And now we want to trade our brilliant young shortstop Yunel Escobar who is inexpensive and under team control for many seasons yet  have no replacement for him waiting in the wings!  We pulled this crap once before.  Remember the Adam LaRoche trade Braves fans?  Adam had just come off a terrific season in 2006 (32 HRS 90 RBI’S .285 BA) yet we just had to have Mike Gonzalez.  We had no replacement in place for Adam LaRoche and at the 2007 trade deadline we ranked dead last (30 out of 30 teams) in production at 1B which is what led to the Teixeira trade in the first place. 

    I guarantee Braves fans that if we trade Yunel Escobar we will rank last in production at SS at the 2009 trade deadline forcing us to make yet another “blockbuster” trade only this time for a shortstop.    

    I would rather go into the 2009 season with a rotation of 
    1) Jair Jurrjens
    2) Mike Hampton (FA)
    3) Jorge Campillo 
    4) Jo Jo Reyes
    5) Charlie Morton 
    (James Parr, Anthony Lerew, Tom Glavine)

    than to make the Jake Peavy trade

    Come on guys; we don’t have to go down this road.  We have $40 million dollars to spend.  If we want to take a “calculated” risk why not go after Ben Sheets?  If healthy, he is a much better pitcher than Jake Peavy (as any Braves fan can tell you).  You want proof?  Ben Sheets had 5, yes 5 complete games in 2008 including 3 shutouts.  Look it up.  Jake Peavy had just one complete game pitching in the worst division in baseball.     

    Sorry for the rant.  I’ll take two aspirins and get some rest.
     

     

  6. Rick says:

    Every potential deal has to be assessed on it’s own merits. You don’t not trade for a player, especially one in a totally different postion, based on what happened in the past no more than you don’t take your car to a mechanic because the last one you took it to ripped you off.
    The Teixeira deal was not a failure because of Teixeira or because of the prospects who were traded away. It didn’t work out for a number of reasons. The biggest was the failure of the pitching staff in both years and the lack of run support in 2008. In 2007 the Braves averaged 5 runs per game. In 2008 they averaged 4.6 RPG.
    No team does well without very good starting pitching. Where on your list is a #1 SP? I don’t see one anywhere. Jurrjens is good and should become better, but do you really think he’s #1 pitcher at this point in his career? I can see him as a legitimate #2 perhaps. If he continues to improve he could move in to the #1 slot.
    Escobar is a brilliant SS? In what universe? He’s barely above league average offensively. He’s got decent range and a good arm, but to call him brilliant is using just a tad too much hyperbole. It’s not like you’re talking Nomar or A-Rod in their prime here.
    The purpose of a trade is to improve your team in an area where they are lacking. If both teams improve in areas of need that is the best case scenario. Right now the Padres need to cut payroll so they want young, cost-controlled players. The Braves are severly lacking in starting pitching. Sounds like it could be a win-win for both teams.Sheets could be a viable option, but he doesn’t have a good history of actually being able to pitch for an entire season. All pitchers are injuries waiting to happen. I just think that Peavey brings more to the table than Sheets does. Also, you don’t use complete games to judge a pitcher’s effectiveness. Sheets complete game numbers are a product of Ned Yost’s stpidity, just like Sabathia’s are. They are also a product of the Brewer’s BP.
    There are quite a few SSs out there that are available. Renteria, Lugo-with the Sox willing to eat a large portion of his contract, to name two.
    As far as injury risk, Shhets has had 1 year from 2004 where he started 30 games or more. Peavey has had 3 years from 2004 where he started more than 30 games. Peavey has hod 1 year from 2004 forward where his ERA+ has been less than 134. Sheets has had 2 years from 2004 where his ERA+ has been better than 134. Also, Sheets is older than peavey and more likely to break down and regress quicker than Peavey is.

  7. Marc Schneider says:

    In theory, I agree you can just throw money at the problem instead of players.  But, realistically, the Braves can’t be sure they can sign a top-calibre free agent unless they throw scads of money at him.  So, it really gets down to whether you want to potentially go into the season with the rotation that Marv Kleeman mentioned.  This, of course, is what comes from the years of poor pitcher development by the Braves organization–they are between a rock and a hard place.  On the one hand, weakening one part of the team to strengthen another makes no sense.  On the other hand, the Braves have won in the past with less-than-stellar shortstops and really have no ace in the rotation.  Also, from a business standpoint, it’s going to be hard enough selling tickets in a tanking economy; if Wren doesn’t make a big splash, it will probably be next to impossible.  I guess my feeling is that Escobar is a good player but I’m not sure he is irreplaceable.

  8. fromtheMIB says:

    So this is where the voices of reason and caution are appreciated? I thought I was crazy for suggesting that a losing team needed to value their developed talent and if a trade must be made, give up the prospects first.

    It is heretical in some corners of Braves fandom to suggest that Yunel Escobar should be part of an untouchable major league core.

    I agree with Marv Kleeman that another blockbuster deal for a SS will have to be made at some point because there aren’t any in the system. SS is a more critical position than Peavy cheerleaders will admit now, but come the season when balls that were gotten to previously start getting through, and runs score that didn’t previously, then it might dawn on people that Escobar should’ve been kept.

    Lastly, this Hanson kid had better be as good as advertised. The AJC writer is filling breathless updates of the kid’s every inning in the Arizona Fall League. The trouble with that is that last year there the same breathless reports about Charlie Morton and he’s likely to join Escobar on the plane out of town.

    Morton went from big time untouchable can’t miss prospect to trade bait in less than a full season. Given the Braves dismal track record in developing starters not named Wainwright, why should we believe Hanson is different?