If you agree with ESPN's Jayson Stark's stance that the Cubs are in payroll limbo till the sale of the team goes through, we can add another team to the growing list of teams not trading for Jake Peavy. Yesterday, the Braves took one, and possibly two steps with their trade for Javier Vazquez, and their willingness to offer A.J. Burnett a 5 year deal, so they are probably out of the running for Peavy.
If the Cubs are done on Peavy, it again begs the question, then who? My opinion-Yankees or Dodgers. The loser of the Sabathia chase, trades for Peavy. Could happen. The Dodgers have several young pitchers they could offer for Peavy including James McDonald and Scott Elbert. They have a couple young shortstops in Chin Lung Hu and Ivan DeJesus Jr. to replace SS Khalil Greene, who apparently is pretty close to being traded.
The Yankees also have several young pitchers to offer in a deal for Peavy including Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, and Phil Coke.
Here's a sleeper team: Milwaukee Brewers. They will most likely lose out on CC Sabathia, and they lost Ben Sheets to free agency also. Now Sheets could accept the arbitration offer for a one year deal to see if he can stay healthy and increase his value in 2009. The Brewers may not have the young pitchers to offer, but they more than make up for it with 3 hitting prospects who are close to being ready for the big leagues: 3Bman Mat Gamel, SS Alcides Escobar (or JJ Hardy) and C Angel Salome. The Brewers could package one of these hitters with SP Manny Parra for Peavy.
Speaking of Jayson Stark, I like him as a writer, but his thought that the Giants could still be in on CC Sabathia is laughable. They already have a quality young staff with Lincecum, Cain and Sanchez, and have to pay Barry Zito $18 million a year for the next 5-6 years. Why would they want to commit another $22 million/yr on another pitcher, when they have many other holes to fill? Stark feels that the Giants would make Matt Cain available should they sign Sabathia to fill one of those offensive holes, which would make sense. But would any team invest $40 million/year in two pitchers, especially when they will have to offer Tim Lincecum a long term contract in a year or two?