Rumor: Braves going after Cain instead of Peavy

by DerekSTheRed on Nov 11, 2008 5:47 PM CST

Despite the Giant's insistence that Cain was untouchable, Dave O'Brien for the Atlanta Journal Constitution (in the comment section) says the Braves are losing patience with the Padres on Peavy and are going to use their prospects to acquire Cain instead. I'm of the opinion that this is just a bluff by the Braves.

Don’t forget a name often mentioned here, Matt Cain, as another potential Braves target. At GM meetings, the S.F. folks didn’t seem to know either way if the Giants would trade him this winter. If they do, and if something happens with the Braves’ Peavy offer, the Braves could always use some of the pieces they offered S.D. to try to get Cain from S.F.

Even if Cain were available, the Rangers could top any offer the Braves were willing to make. Cain, unlike Peavy doesn't have a no-trade clause. That no-trade clause artificially lowered the demand so that the Braves can get Peavy without having to give up a guy like Hansen. That's not going to be the case with Cain and the Giants. If the Padres are smart, they'll call the Braves' bluff and say they are going to hold on to Peavy. It's not like they are just dying to move him anyway despite what O'Brien says. The Braves will come crawling back eventually.

Tweet Comment 15 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

The Giants are about to be sold,

and need to cut salary badly. This smells like a bluff/misdirection to me.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Nov 11, 2008 5:52 PM CST reply actions

About to be sold?

Where did you get this tidbit of information?

by biff pocoroba on Nov 12, 2008 10:43 AM CST up reply actions

I think he meant

about to be so old.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Nov 12, 2008 1:24 PM CST up reply actions

No they are not.

A current member of ownership just took the reins, so there is no basis for your comment.

Go Cubbies and Go Rangers!

by pbpsean on Nov 12, 2008 12:02 PM CST up reply actions

Eh, sue me.

I thought i had read that, but I couldn’t find any links.

Howsabout “A change in ownership control is requiring them to reduce payroll”?

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Nov 12, 2008 3:01 PM CST up reply actions

this is considered speculation and not a rumor according to MLBTRADERUMORS.com

The bloggerformelyknownasBigBaddBubbaJ

by NYTXFAN on Nov 11, 2008 6:48 PM CST reply actions

We can trump any offer the braves have

While not all, some of our #10-20 guys could be in their top 10. Not saying that we’re thinking about Cain, but just saying.

"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."

by Maximilian on Nov 11, 2008 7:05 PM CST reply actions

I don't know about that

We have more prospects than them but not better elite ones. And I certainly don’t want to start piling up our best assets to get Cain.

by Brett Perryman on Nov 11, 2008 11:55 PM CST up reply actions

I understand what you're saying

and I too don’t want to overpay to get Cain. I just think that the fact that we have so many good to very good prospects in addition to the select elite gives us a great position in any trade proposal, real or rumored. A trade for someone like Cain would involve an elite prospect or two, yes. But trades for a young, friendly contract starter also multiple positions filled, and sometimes there are guys who aren’t as high on the elite upside status, but are MLB ready and can make a difference faster than the elite guys.

But I fully support developing what we’ve got over getting Cain, for sure.

"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."

by Maximilian on Nov 12, 2008 1:34 AM CST up reply actions

All I’m saying is that the Braves can pretty much go toe to toe with us as far as what they can offer (Heyward, Hanson, Schafer are so appealing, and Gorkys, Freeman, Teheran, etc give them plenty of a next tier), and that when you start talking about topping Atlanta – assuming that they really, really want him – gets you into territory that I’m not comfortable getting into, regardless of whether Texas has enough depth to theoretically overcome it.

by Brett Perryman on Nov 12, 2008 1:39 AM CST up reply actions

Point taken

Any further arguing would have to dive into which team would want him more, and we don’t know anything for sure as to either FO’s mindset. I could speculate, but I’ll refrain.

"Relying on the government to protect your privacy is like asking a peeping tom to install your window blinds."

by Maximilian on Nov 12, 2008 1:48 AM CST up reply actions