04-27-2009, 04:40 PM
<!--quoteo(post=33520:date=Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It's a bad move because they waited until their best asset, an asset that essentially HAS to be moved (unless you believe they can make the playoffs with their current squad), an asset which is only valuable to them as a trading chit, is now worth much less than in December.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do they have to move him? Why can't they keep him, signed, for a few more years? I don't understand why they only have an option of trading him before the season or trading him during the season.
<!--quoteo(post=33520:date=Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There is no reason to keep Peavy on bad team. There is no reason to pay Peavy 50 million dollars for a team that won't make the playoffs. Therefore he needs to be moved. Even without his decline in effectiveness, he would be worth less simply because teams are going to be even more leery of dealing for a contract that huge in today's market.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's where we disagree. If that were the case, there'd be no reason for a lot of teams to keep a lot of players. But that's not the case. Peavy is the best player that team has. Fans come to see him. Fans will depart in droves if that franchise waives the "white flag" (trust me on this one).
<!--quoteo(post=33520:date=Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If Towers could have simply got rid of that contract, and got Vitters and a bag of peanuts, he would be better off than he is now. That is why it's a bad move.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure that is true. If that team stays around .500 most of the season, it will be considered a "contender" in the NL West. That alone is worth a lot of tickets sold. That alone is worth a lot of morale. That alone is a positive. Vitters is a 19 yo in Single A. Yes - he is a top prospect in his league - but he is a long way away from making the majors. Towers can wait it out and see what else comes up. Not knowing that Peavy would start off with a 6 ERA (and his team still be a few games over .500 after the first 15 games) isn't something to blame Towers for.
Lots of teams are bad, many of them have star players. But few trade them out of necesity. When GMs make moves like that, they get shafted. It's way too early to say that the Pads can't win that division. It is fairly weak - I think anyone can win it. (except Colorado)
Towers may just be holding Peavy long enough to get him to expand the list of teams he'd accept a trade to, and thus expand his value just based on the creation of a market which right now doesn't exist. Who knows?
I just don't see how it is a bad idea to not give away a Triple Crown type pitcher for a 19 year old.
Why do they have to move him? Why can't they keep him, signed, for a few more years? I don't understand why they only have an option of trading him before the season or trading him during the season.
<!--quoteo(post=33520:date=Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->There is no reason to keep Peavy on bad team. There is no reason to pay Peavy 50 million dollars for a team that won't make the playoffs. Therefore he needs to be moved. Even without his decline in effectiveness, he would be worth less simply because teams are going to be even more leery of dealing for a contract that huge in today's market.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here's where we disagree. If that were the case, there'd be no reason for a lot of teams to keep a lot of players. But that's not the case. Peavy is the best player that team has. Fans come to see him. Fans will depart in droves if that franchise waives the "white flag" (trust me on this one).
<!--quoteo(post=33520:date=Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM:name=BT)-->QUOTE (BT @ Apr 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->If Towers could have simply got rid of that contract, and got Vitters and a bag of peanuts, he would be better off than he is now. That is why it's a bad move.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure that is true. If that team stays around .500 most of the season, it will be considered a "contender" in the NL West. That alone is worth a lot of tickets sold. That alone is worth a lot of morale. That alone is a positive. Vitters is a 19 yo in Single A. Yes - he is a top prospect in his league - but he is a long way away from making the majors. Towers can wait it out and see what else comes up. Not knowing that Peavy would start off with a 6 ERA (and his team still be a few games over .500 after the first 15 games) isn't something to blame Towers for.
Lots of teams are bad, many of them have star players. But few trade them out of necesity. When GMs make moves like that, they get shafted. It's way too early to say that the Pads can't win that division. It is fairly weak - I think anyone can win it. (except Colorado)
Towers may just be holding Peavy long enough to get him to expand the list of teams he'd accept a trade to, and thus expand his value just based on the creation of a market which right now doesn't exist. Who knows?
I just don't see how it is a bad idea to not give away a Triple Crown type pitcher for a 19 year old.