OK, A New Spin on The Padres and U-Know-Who...

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jan 11, 2009 6:36 PM CST Comment 46 comments

I -- and I'd wager, all here -- would think that Jeff Moorad would be in full charge of the Padres as soon as he was approved, and the ink was dry on the contract.

But, as I interpret this story in the Union-Tribune of 1-11...That's not the case.

Says Tom Krasovac:

"John Moores will remain as majority owner of the Padres for three or four years, even if the ongoing negotiations with a Jeff Moorad-led group yields an agreement, according to major league sources."
Moores Still In Charge?

OK, here we go -- again. If Moores is still running the show -- he wants the payroll at 40 mil.....therefore......need I even say more? Does "majority owner in-waiting" wield enough clout to veto what the "still-the-majority-owner" wants? This is all very strange. And we think the Cubs have had a bizarre past....

That "deal," as far as I am concerned, comes back on the table.

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 46 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Well, I hope so. Then we get Roberts, too, and go to the World Series! (and win)

Mock me if you will, everyone, I’m just wishing, here.

by jdb-44 on Jan 11, 2009 6:55 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

No mock on jdb-44

I agree 100 percent . If Cubs land Peavey and Roberts . I think the Cubs can beat the Yankees in the world seies . Looks like Brian Roberts according to Baltimore Sun that he won’t sign a new contract .. That means the O’s HAVE to trade him …

by CUBFANINAZ on Jan 12, 2009 8:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

They May Not Have To Trade Him Now...

… but definitely by 7/31/2009…

My 2008 Christmas wish list includes this jersey. In Hendry We Trust!

by initram on Jan 12, 2009 4:53 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's just bizarre.

If Moorad’s group buys the team, why would they keep Moores as majority owner? Doesn’t Moores want out so he can settle the divorce?

This makes no sense at all.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 11, 2009 7:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

There is, even, a possibility

that both the old owner and the new owner are in agreement about a desire to trade Peavy.

The author of this post is not a certified scout, doctor, agent, statistician, manager, or journalist, nor was he ever a very good player, though he tried very hard to be like Ryne Sandberg and was about as scrappy as it gets (in T-ball). Any opinion expressed above should in no way be confused with fact, truth, or reality and is hereby qualified in the following ways: 1) The author does not know as much about baseball as Lou Piniella. 2) The author does not know as much about baseball as Jim Hendry. 3) The author does not know as much about baseball as either Dusty or Darren Baker.

by DGU on Jan 11, 2009 7:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Or, as the case may be...

… to NOT trade him. We just don’t know.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 11, 2009 7:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

On Peavy

I’m content to wait and see. I think it’s possible, but I don’t know how likely it is. Just waiting to see….

by DGU on Jan 11, 2009 7:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Can I ask a question?

Am I the only one around here who thinks that even if Peavy were available, the better choice at this point might still be Derrek Lowe — assuming the Cubs are still looking externally to fill that rotation spot?

by Damen Jackson on Jan 11, 2009 8:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't agree with you

But that’s because Lowe is a lot older.

by elgato on Jan 11, 2009 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I find that intriguing, but

it depends how much Derrek wants.

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Jan 11, 2009 8:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

He’s durable and a worm burner, so he would fit in fine with our rotation and isnt as prone to injury as a power pitcher like Peavy, and wont cost prospects.

And if they could somehow use those prospects to get Roberts, then that would be ideal.

So youd have to weigh the risk of a 4 year deal for an older pitcher, or gambling our prospects plus 60+M that Peavy can succeed outside of Petco and avoid injury.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 11, 2009 8:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and...

has alot of playoff experience

Dear Santa:: All I want for X-mas this year is an official 2009 Jake Peavy Cubs Jersey. Oh and a Beimel one too. I've been a real good guy for the most part!!!

by cubsluver22 on Jan 11, 2009 9:08 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

5-5 3.33 ERA in the playoffs

I think we all saw what he can do. I’d rather have Lowe than Peavy. The salary cost + player cost for Peavy is way too high.

by dr stabbingworth on Jan 12, 2009 11:00 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good question

I’d actually rather have Sheets than both of them, given reports of Sheets’ price going down. Sheets does cost a draft pick, but that doesn’t compare to giving up Vitters.

by DGU on Jan 11, 2009 8:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

thats a lot of uncertainty in one rotation, dont you think?

harden, z and sheets? yikes, I dont know we have backups for all of them

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 11, 2009 9:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

only if you think they'll all go down at the same time

which I suppose is a distinct possibility, but I think the chances are greater that only one would be down at a time. So as long as Lou always has 6 decent starters on hand, I think we’re in good shape. So with Z, Demp, Lilly, and Harden already in the fold, that still leaves one slot open. Although I would prefer Peavy from a talent perspective, and Lowe works if we have a “hey, if money is no object” perspective, I’m perfectly fine with picking up the likes of Sheets if we can get a good deal on him. That leaves Marshall as the #6 guy and to me, that’s a sign of a good rotation.

Lou Brown: "My kinda team, Charlie, my kinda team..."

by ballhawk on Jan 11, 2009 10:30 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Sheets pitched 25 more innings than Peavy in 2008.

Plus, we do have the backups: Gaudin, Marshall, and Samardzija.

by DGU on Jan 11, 2009 11:01 PM CST up reply actions 1 recs

All the more reason to want Lowe

Sheets pitched more innings than Peavy? thats crazy, I wouldnt have guessed that.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 11, 2009 11:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's my point; people assume Sheets' health is worse than it is.

And why is this all the more reason to want to pay 16 M a year to Derek Lowe?

by DGU on Jan 12, 2009 7:39 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

B/C you know what to expect from him and there is no risk of injury

Plus hes good, and Sheets hadnt even come close to his 08 innings total since 2004, so theres just as much a chance he’ll miss significant time as him playing as much or more than Peavy

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 12, 2009 8:55 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Why are so many people afraid of injury risk?

I would much rather buy low on a guy with upside then buy high on a guy who’s close to the downhill portion of his career, if not already there.

And in particular, comparing Sheets and Peavy – the bigger risk is with Peavy because of the heavy contract load he’ll be bringing along. With Sheets, on a two-year contract, for less than Peavy’s next two years, the cost of and injured Sheets is manageable.

As for Sheets having that stretch from ‘05 to ’07 – there are two important questions – why did he have that stretch and was he healthy before that? Sheets was healthy before that, and the bad stretch came from a muscle tear in his shoulder that ended up altering his mechanics as part of the healing. Altering mechanics can take some time to adjust to. Is it possible Sheets has adjusted and will return to his earlier level of consistency? I don’t know. I don’t have his health records. But I’d sure be checking.

by DGU on Jan 12, 2009 9:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Gotcha

hey, he would be a great add, but are you sure he’s going to come that cheaply anyway?

Sure it might not be Lowes 16M, but he wont be cheap. Id be excited if they did sign him, if for no other reason than we’d take him directly from the Brewers, but he hasnt been linked to the Cubs in any respect thus far

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 12, 2009 9:41 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The more I think of it, the more I like it

Giving up a draft pick for Sheets, if he can be had on a short term deal, is easier to swallow than giving up Vitters for Peavy, or anyone for that matter.

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 12, 2009 9:43 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Forget Lowe

The Cubs won’t pay his price. I suspect that the Mets and Braves would pay more for Lowe than the Cubs.

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2009 10:52 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Stat of the day for those in love with Peavy

Sheets pitched more innings than Peavy in 2008.

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2009 10:51 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

thats a bit misleading

given their respective histories, but the case for Sheets is becoming increasingly strong to me, and very intriguing

Okay, just so I understand it... in your wildest fantasy, you are in hell. And you are co-running a bed and breakfast with the devil.

by bren on Jan 12, 2009 12:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And

from 2005-2008, inclusive, Peavy pitched 200 more innings than Sheets.

by azjazzman on Jan 12, 2009 1:50 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Either Way

we need our new ownership in place.

Why did Zambrano get extended for $90+M? Likely because all ownership bidders at the time (5-6) unanimously agreed.

Why not Peavy? Is it because he was not an in-house player? Or, was it that at least one of the ownership bidders objected? Now that they are down to three, perhaps at least one still objects?

I had heard somewhere that Kenney put Peavy’s contract in as a part of the ownership bidding, for whatever that’s worth…

My 2008 Christmas wish list includes this jersey. In Hendry We Trust!

by initram on Jan 11, 2009 8:02 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Was Z's contract put before potential new owners?

I didn’t think it would have been.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 12, 2009 7:35 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I doubt new owners would have seen Z's deal.

That was made well before the list was even close to final.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 8:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

I believe that his deal was put in front of Zell’s people before it was approved, that being prior to when the Trib-Zell deal was finalized.

by Damen Jackson on Jan 12, 2009 10:10 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense.

But not in front of anyone BUYING the team from Zell.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think...

…current Cub ownership started to get potential input from bidders until the last couple of months or so.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 12, 2009 2:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way,

What does Voldemort have to do with the Padres?

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true! --Homer J. Simpson

by Shanghai Badger on Jan 11, 2009 8:34 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

him who shall not be named

LOL it took me a second to understand what u were talking about

"You must try to generate happiness within yourself. If you aren't happy in one place, chances are you won't be happy anyplace."

by All The Way on Jan 11, 2009 9:33 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Silly me I thought you meant something totally different

I was hoping "He who shall not be named " was moving to San Diego for warmer weather and a better dentist.

"I am not ashamed to say I love Greg Maddux" - Jim Hendry

by Doggie Stalker on Jan 11, 2009 10:51 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

The biggest question is still that $40M number

If it’s still $40M, then Peavy (or >$10M other salary) has to be traded. They have $31.2M committed to SEVEN players. Do the arithmetic. If none of those seven guys are moved, they have to fill the entire remaining part of the roster with minimum wage players.

Sweet Lou for Mayor in '11.

by blackhawk24 on Jan 12, 2009 7:34 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Well, they easily could do that...

… they’re going to be close to a 100-loss team whether they sign veterans or fill the roster with minor leaguers.

We just do not know what is going to be done with payroll, no matter what is published on signonsandiego.com.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 8:13 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, Al --

of course we don’t exactly know what any team will do for sure. Hell, I put this trade to bed until this story surfaced. Krasovec is one of the more credible writers in that rag of a newspaper, so this piece has some meat to it.

If Moorad isn’t in control after the sale takes place — and Moores’ mandate to get the payroll to 40 mil — getting rid of one of the high-priced players seems still possible.

Outside of Eric Byrnes, which D-Backs are highly paid? (One could argue the Byrnes signing hasn’t panned out quite as they expected) Moorad hasn’t exactly Steinbrenner-esque, save for the Byrnes deal.

The D-Backs philospohy is one that doesn’t quite throw money around, so I wouldn’t expect a free-agent frenzy here even if Moorad took over the reigns of the Pads immediately.

Also, regards to the Padres minor league system — it stinks. There’s talent at A and AA…but there’s no one player that can fill a need in ‘09. That’s why an influx of somebody else’s talent that’s close to the majors might really help them at various positions immediately….

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Jan 12, 2009 1:05 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

You're making speculation...

… based on something we don’t know for sure. Frankly, it makes no sense for Moorad to buy a team when someone else would be “principal owner” for 3-4 years. Or, maybe Moores keeps running the team, but Moorad’s group provides money for increased payroll.

Remember, Moorad has formed a NEW group to buy the Padres; it’s not Arizona’s ownership group.

You’re reading things into this that aren’t there.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 2:23 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What may be going down here...

…is Morre wants to settle with his wife based on a lower valuation (in today’s economy) for the Pads. If he completely sells out in 3-4 years, his ownership at that time will probably be worth much more, and he will be out from under his current divorce settlement.

I don’t know, just guessing here.

"I don't like them fellas that drive in two runs but let in three" Casey Stengel

by MPH73 on Jan 12, 2009 2:39 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs

Rec'd

by DGU on Jan 12, 2009 4:57 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting take.

Why Moorad would agree to such an arrangement is beyond me.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 5:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And that might be what they do

They aren’t signing any FA’s. They will be bottom fishing.

by rlpete on Jan 12, 2009 10:48 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Or filling the team with minimum-wage minor leaguers from their system.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al on Jan 12, 2009 11:04 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

And we all thought the sale of the Cubs was taking forever

There are still a lot of unsigned FAs out there, and we are already mid-January, sooner or later some of them will be signing somewhere on the cheap would be my guess, so the Pads could land some FAs before it’s over. Still, seems like their payroll is already under 40 million, so while the Pads may not be under dire financial restraits to deal Peavy anymore, at some point it might just make sense, like Bedard and Baltimore last year. I’d imagine they regret re-signing Giles at this point, which I guess was decided before the divorce process began?

If I were the Pads I’d take Vitters and all the spare parts they can get for Peavy.

by BucknerKongCardenal on Jan 12, 2009 7:01 PM CST reply actions 0 recs