Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /home4/derok6/public_html/chop-n-change/plugins/system/cdnforjoomla/helper.php on line 27
peavy_watch_big_spenders | October | 2008 Articles

2008 Archives

Peavy Watch: Big Spenders?

on .

There's a great pitching matchup (Cole Hamels vs. Scott Kazmir) for game one of the World Series tonight, but you really wouldn't know that by checking around the baseball blogosphere. Most of the talk seems to already be on the off-season (maybe we're all bitter about watching a team other than our own in the fall classic) and of course, much of that talk is centered around Jake Peavy. The latest couple of links are not very encouraging for Braves fans, regardless of whether you're for or against dealing for the San Diego right-hander.

  • The first bit of information comes from Tom Krasovic of The San Diego Union-Tribune. The Padres beat writer talked to Peavy's agent, Barry Axelrod, who said that the team trading for Peavy would have to guarantee the pitcher a full no-trade clause. As of now, Peavy has full no-trade rights through 2010 with partial no-trade rights from 2011-2013. Under John Schuerholz, it was well-known that the Braves refused to give any player a no-trade clause, but Schuerholz is not the GM any more and we don't know if that philosophy was passed on to Frank Wren. Also, it'll be interesting to see if these words hold true, if and when Peavy has a choice between staying in San Diego without a full no-trade clause or being dealt to Atlanta without a full no-trade clause.
  • Krasovic adds that Peavy's MRI's have shown no structural damage.
  • For the most shocking news, we turn to Joel Sherman of the New York Post. Sherman starts of by saying that the majority of "major league executives" he polled believe that Peavy will be traded to the Braves (not exactly a shock) and then says that those executives believe the deal will center around Tommy Hanson, Jordan Schafer, and one of the Braves' middle infielders.This one I just can't believe. Everything else we've heard has a package centered around one or at most two of the players listed by Sherman. My bet is that someone misheard an "and" for an "or".

You Might Like...