Cubs Looking at Derek Lowe?

[Ace]

<!--quoteo-->QUOTE <!--quotec-->SI.com's Jon Heyman believes the Cubs are showing interest in free agent Derek Lowe.
Lowe would prefer to pitch on the East Coast, but if the Yankees and Andy Pettitte can work out their differences, there might not be a AL or NL East contender willing to give him the dollars he wants. The Red Sox have some interest, but would probably offer just three years. The Orioles and Nationals could certainly use him, but Lowe is said to want to join a contender. The Cubs might have a legitimate shot if they're willing to spend $15 million per year. First, they'd likely have to dump Jason Marquis.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Rotoworld.com

[Ace]

This seems a bit superfluous.

[savant]

It does bring up a good point though. If the Cubs were willing/able to bring on Peavy's $63 million, why can't they spend that on another starting pitcher that cost's no prospects? Move Marquis' contract and they can still go after a bat and a frontline starter.

[Ace]

The mixed message here is that after Peavy fell through, we were told the Cubs had to move Marquis before they could even sign Bradley.

Personally, I think in a few years, Peavy's deal is gonna look like a steal (even with the backloading). That's why I still think he's worth the prospects.

[Scarey]

I have a very strong feeling that Lowe is going to flop big time on whoever signs him. The guy is turning 36 in June. I would only feel comfortable signing him if my home ball park had an expansive outfield.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=5333:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM:name=savant)-->QUOTE (savant @ Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->It does bring up a good point though. If the Cubs were willing/able to bring on Peavy's $63 million, why can't they spend that on another starting pitcher that cost's no prospects? Move Marquis' contract and they can still go after a bat and a frontline starter.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I agree. I'd much rather do this by a lot over the rumored Peavy deals. Lowe would be perfect at Wrigley, and he's got a ton of playoff experience. Plus, I don't wanna face him again.

[Coldneck]

<!--quoteo(post=5340:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:42 PM:name=Scarey)-->QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 16 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have a very strong feeling that Lowe is going to flop big time on whoever signs him. The guy is turning 36 in June. I would only feel comfortable signing him if my home ball park had an expansive outfield.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Since Lowe is one of the best sinkerballers in the league I am not to worried about the size of the yard he plays in. I more worried about the defense we'd put behind him and the fact that he is 36 years old with a lot of mileage on his body.

Over the last 4 years he has been quite consistent with last year being the best of them.


EDIT - I just checked Lowe's home/road splits. Over the last 3 years he is almost a full run worse when he's not pitching at Dodger Stadium. That's definitely a concern.

[ruby23]

That sounds totally made up.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=5343:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:53 PM:name=Coldneck)-->QUOTE (Coldneck @ Dec 16 2008, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=5340:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:42 PM:name=Scarey)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Scarey @ Dec 16 2008, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->I have a very strong feeling that Lowe is going to flop big time on whoever signs him. The guy is turning 36 in June. I would only feel comfortable signing him if my home ball park had an expansive outfield.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Since Lowe is one of the best sinkerballers in the league I am not to worried about the size of the yard he plays in. I more worried about the defense we'd put behind him and the fact that he is 36 years old with a lot of mileage on his body.

Over the last 4 years he has been quite consistent with last year being the best of them.


EDIT - I just checked Lowe's home/road splits. Over the last 3 years he is almost a full run worse when he's not pitching at Dodger Stadium. That's definitely a concern.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He was unreal from the ASB through the playoffs though, didn't matter where he pitched. This guy steps up.

Actually, I didn't realize he was so good in June and April too. His month of May where he allowed 24 earned runs in 35 innings made his year look a lot worse.

[Croz]

<!--quoteo(post=5345:date=Dec 16 2008, 09:58 PM:name=ruby23)-->QUOTE (ruby23 @ Dec 16 2008, 09:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->That sounds totally made up.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yeh I don't see this happening at all. 15 million is way too much and we are already in fine shape with our starting staff. If we are not adding Peavy then we shouldn't be interested.

[Clapp]

Hendry backloads everything though. He didn't have that option with Peavy's contract. If he could trade Marquis which isn't a guarantee, I could definitely see him fitting this deal and Bradley's into our 2009 payroll.

[CCwinwssoon]

I'm all for the Cubs going after another frontline starter with some concerns of Dempster repeating his 08 season and Harden's injury history. I actually think the Cubs may find some bargains by the time January rolls around. Maybe we can get someone of extreme value on the cheap.

[Clapp]

<!--quoteo(post=5349:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Hendry backloads everything though. <b>He didn't have that option with Peavy's contract.</b> If he could trade Marquis which isn't a guarantee, I could definitely see him fitting this deal and Bradley's into our 2009 payroll.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forget what I said. I forgot Peavy was only making 8 million this year. I think that's what it is right?

And I'll keep talking to myself, yeah that's what Cot's says.

[BT]

<!--quoteo(post=5334:date=Dec 16 2008, 09:12 PM:name=Ace)-->QUOTE (Ace @ Dec 16 2008, 09:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->The mixed message here is that after Peavy fell through, we were told the Cubs had to move Marquis before they could even sign Bradley.

Personally, I think in a few years, Peavy's deal is gonna look like a steal (even with the backloading). That's why I still think he's worth the prospects.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


I can safely say that there is no way on God's green earth that that 22 million owed Peavy in the final (option) year of his contract will ever be looked at as a "steal" by any rational human being on the planet. In all likelyhood neither will any of his salaries in the 15-17 million range. They might not be egregiously bad, but I have a hard time thinking they will be a steal.

[Ace]

<!--quoteo(post=5352:date=Dec 16 2008, 11:18 PM:name=Clapp)-->QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 16 2008, 11:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec--><!--quoteo(post=5349:date=Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM:name=Clapp)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Clapp @ Dec 16 2008, 10:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->Hendry backloads everything though. <b>He didn't have that option with Peavy's contract.</b> If he could trade Marquis which isn't a guarantee, I could definitely see him fitting this deal and Bradley's into our 2009 payroll.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Forget what I said. I forgot Peavy was only making 8 million this year. I think that's what it is right?

And I'll keep talking to myself, yeah that's what Cot's says.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, Peavy's deal is heavily backloaded.