clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Why I like Jake Peavy's potential deal

I like having other Padres blogs around because it gives me somebody to disagree with. Kinda like when Richard spent time on the internets. Fun to argue. That being said, I will disagree with Sac Bunt's RL when he says this about the potential Peavy deal:

I don't hate this deal. I think there is something to be said about making a big splash. I think it'll help calm the fans down and show the more outspoken members of the team, like Peavy, that this team is committed to winning. But it's hard for me to shake the feeling that it's no different than saying that So-and-so who never walks and hits for no power is valuable because he hustles and gets his jersey dirty and all the other clichés that are out there.

In other words, this is an Eric Owens extension.
I was kinda with the rest of the post till that last part. People sometimes forget that there's a business aspect to baseball. Peavy's value isn't going to be measured in just wins (though I guarantee you that Peavy will be worth more in wins than Eric Owens ever did). Peavy's value will be in all of those wins and in gearing up towards the Padres escaping the Cox Cable deal.

What makes me feel best about this deal is the fact that it's backloaded to 2010 and 2011... The years when the Cox Cable deal is done and the Padres create their Regional Sports Network with Aztec and Torrero basketball. Throw some AVP into the mix... Maybe Aztec football I suppose and get San Diego back in the mix for a MLS team and we're talking huge dollars.

I don't know if they really will create an RSN with all those partners, but it seems to make sense to me, and when something makes sense to me, it usually just makes sense. Kevin Towers and Sandy Alderson are the Tightwads of Baseball (aka the Freaks of the Industry). They've been stung before (as Sac Bunt points out). I'm guessing that $17 million must not sound like a lot to KT and Sandy in a few years.

RL brings up the Peter Gammons' point that no team that's spent more than 16% of its payroll on a single player has ever won the World Series. With all due respect to Peter Gammons, while he is simply making an observation, he's treating this observation as if it's a rule to be followed. This is a rule that's meant to be broken. Just this year, the Padres spent 17.2% of their payroll on one player... Greg Maddux. And I would love for the Padres to repeatedly have teams like they had in 2007, which many considered for most of the year to be the best team in the NL.

Peter Gammons is confusing one single aspect of the Yankees (overpaying A-Rod) and concluding that it's the reason that the Yankees haven't won a World Series this millennium. It ignores the fact that the team hasn't just overvalued A-Rod, but rather overvalued every single player on the team. The Padres on the other hand, have been extremely efficient at signing talent and, in recent years, have built a team of players rather than a group of stars.

To bring it back to more of the money aspect... Jake Peavy is a boh-nuh fahyd star. Eric Owens was a fan favorite to be sure, but he wasn't selling tickets the way that Jake Peavy will sell tickets. Market Peavy correctly and he's the guy that will sell out his starts just because he's starting.

I realize that I was rambling. Moral of the story:
  1. The reason to be excited about this deal isn't just that it keeps Peavy here, but rather is a sign that the Padres will be spending much more money in the future.

  2. Peavy is much much much much more valuable than Eric Owens, though I really liked Eric Owens.

  3. Peter Gammons' analysis isn't wrong, but he's not really right either.