I'm quite sure it wasn't intentional, but I chuckled reading this (emphasis mine):
"Honestly," [Cubs GM Jim] Hendry said, "it's my job … if you want to add significant dollars, then I should be able to move some, too. That's part of my job. It doesn't take a lot of creativity if you just spend the most money and buy the most expensive player all the time. As a general manager, I feel an obligation that if we want to do a few things -- instead of one thing or two things -- then we've got to get creative."Zing!
And not for nothing, I still don't buy the "Peavy to the Cubs by Christmas or bust" stuff. If the Padres need to cut salary and we enter February, there's no reason why a trade can't be done then. Doesn't have to be with the Yanks (and leave my obsession alone, will ya!), but the need to free up cash is very real in San Diego.
And you wonder what that financial pressure looks like and why I so adamant that Peavy WILL be dealt:
One of the big questions hovering over that chat will be how much pressure the Padres are under to move Peavy, who is scheduled to make $11 million next season for a team whose payroll is in the midst of plummeting as close to $40 million as Towers can cut it.A quarter of their payroll. That's significant, dontchya think? If your salary was halved, wouldn't you do what you had to do to survive under the new conditions? And that BMW in your driveway.... time to get rid of it, even if it's in a deal that you KNOW favors the buyer. The Padres have become the MLB example of what the current economic crisis looks like. They are suffering through the equivalent of having just lost their job, their mortgage is about to adjust, they are mid-divorce. Not a position of negotiating strength. Time to sell the assets that they must in order to survive the New World Order.
"That will be tough," Towers said. "That's almost a quarter of our payroll. And it makes it tough to improve a great deal on the field. But I still consider Jake to be a tremendous asset. He's one of the best pitchers in the game. I'd much rather go into the season with a guy who's an established No. 1 [starter], and hopefully our young players are as good as we think they are, and improve that way, versus doing a poor baseball deal just because he's making a quarter of our payroll."
Posts
2 comments:
You really are obsessed with Peavy at this point. And pardon me for saying, but there seems to be plenty of "Yankee arrogance" in these Peavy posts wherein you seem to presume Peavy will be a Yankee before next season...although, knowing you to be a rationale human being, that probably isn't the case.
Different post, but I'm lazy...wouldn't get too comfortable with the idea of Burnett in pinstripes just yet...Henry is said to be quite enamored of ol' AJ, and he can offer Burnett the chance to play for a winner! (zing)
(gasp)
Really? Tad, I honestly wouldn't call it obsessed or arrogance. I view it under the lens of a financial decision. The Padres have little leverage, other than keeping Peavy. The Yanks (and any other team with the wherewithal to pay, but I use the Yanks because that's my team/platform) have the ability to wait it out until the Padres get desperate enough. If they get desperate enough. Say you lost your job and had to sell your house. There's one buyer out there who offers you $100K below your price. But he's the only buyer. Either you take what you can get and move on, or you bleed your resources to keep that asset. Desperation is no place to make a financial decision and I think Towers is in that spot (or will be soon).
I'm obsessed with the gives and takes, the dancing of the elephants, if you will. Peavy is just the subject, but what really gets me excited is to see how the "game" will be played by each side. Will the Padres hold Peavy until the July deadline and try again? Will they be forced, by ownership (who is in the midst of a very messy divorce), to slash and burn?
The Yankee arrogance, is misapplied here. Yankee arrogance would be saying that "CC will be a Yankee because the Yanks are historically the best franchise...blah blah blah". Yankee arrogance would say "I can't understand why Peavy would not want to play here". I haven't said any of that, nor will I.
What I have said is that the guy with the biggest pocketbook holds all the leverage when it comes to a bailout. When Lehman went under, they took whatever offer they could get, no matter how under-market it might have seemed. This situation isn't materially different once you get away from the names.
As for Burnett, it's a "like" not "love" situation with me. I'd like to have him for 4 years. I'd hate to go 5. I'd LOVE 3 years. Like I have said with Pettitte, if he can get his money and years elsewhere, who am I to begrudge. After all, it IS about the money, stupid. Ain't it?
Post a Comment