White Sox trade for Peavy?

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

]White Sox, Padres agree on trade for Peavy, await pitcher's decision By Jon Heyman, SI.com The White Sox have reached agreement with the Padres on a trade for Jake Peavy but are awaiting Peavy's approval now, SI.com has learned. Peavy has full no-trade power and the trade will be entirely his call. The sides are expecting a fairly quick decision by Peavy. Peavy's agent, Barry Axelrod, said that Peavy prefers "Middle America,'' so that should work. However, Peavy is also known to like the National League. The particulars of the deal are unknown at this point. The Padres need pitching, and Chicago's top pitching prospect, LHP Aaron Poreda, is believed to be part of the trade, as is lefty Clayton Richard, according to cbssports.com's Danny Knobler. The Padres also need a shortstop, but the White Sox won't part with their top overall prospect, SS Gordon Beckham. The San Diego Union-Tribune reported this morning that the sides were close to a deal. Peavy is off to a 3-5 start this season with a 3.82 ERA and 1.11 WHIP. The 27-year-old right-hander enjoyed his finest outing of the season last Sunday, when he threw a complete game while allowing one run on four hits. For his career, Peavy owns an 89-67 mark with a 3.27 ERA. He won the NL Cy Young award in 2007, taking the pitching Triple Crown by leading the National League with 19 wins, 240 strikeouts and a 2.54 ERA. Peavy's making $11 million this season. His earnings increase to $15 million in 2010, $16 million in 2011 and $17 million in 2012. The Padres hold a team option for $22 million in 2013 with a $4 million buyout. John Danks and Gavin Floyd have been struggling for the White Sox, who are off to a slow start (17-22) but still have plenty of hope being in a tight AL Central.

[nymr83]

well at least the phillies didnt get him. i wish he was coming here but lately the starting pitching hasnt been the problem at all.

[metirish]

Kenny Williams always seems to make a good trade.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

="metirish":235c44l8]Kenny Williams always seems to make a good trade.[/quote:235c44l8] Poreda seems like an interesting lefty-- 6'6", with a stunning fastball (95 with sink/run movement) and iffy secondary stuff. Still, he's put up nice numbers (2.69 ERA/1.10 WHIP and 7.2 K/9 in 207.1 minor league innings at three levels in one year), and is the consensus choice as their second-best prospect after Beckham. Also, even if the secondary stuff-- slider and change, I think?-- stays "fair," he could be extremely useful in late relief. Clayton Richard is also a rangy dude, with a 2-and 4-seam fastball; formerly a strikeout guy, he lives off his sink now (sound familiar?). Not a bad haul... but ye Pods may have been better served to take the Brave offer (including some pitching, and filling some position-player need). Glad he didn't, though.

Fman99 May 21 2009 11:58 AM

This is not a done deal necessarily. He has to approve the trade and he's known to want to stay in the NL.

smg58 May 21 2009 12:06 PM

He gives up more than his share of home runs pitching in Petco. He's not going to like US Cellular.

metirish May 21 2009 04:30 PM

His agent says Peavy wants to stay in the NL.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 21 2009 04:58 PM

Peavy: You're f*cking out, White Sox. (Without named sources attached and unconfirmed by the principals, but CBS and ESPN seem to be running with it.) http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270335/15161683

metirish May 21 2009 05:05 PM

I'm watching MLB Network's "On-Deck Circle" and they are reporting that Peavy said no.....Larkin then pipes in about time he got traded to the Mets " I nixed that deal because terms of a multi-year deal couldn't be worked out"....

smg58 May 21 2009 06:45 PM

Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.

OlerudOwned May 21 2009 07:15 PM

="smg58":14ox7vdi]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.[/quote:14ox7vdi] Players like having a choice in where they get traded to. Unless every front office colludes on stopping the practice, there's going to be at least one franchise willing to go that road to sweeten the pot. Nymr83 May 21 2009 08:15 PM ="OlerudOwned":3g5bq3dh] ="smg58":3g5bq3dh]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] Players like having a choice in where they get traded to. Unless every front office colludes on stopping the practice, there's going to be at least one franchise willing to go that road to sweeten the pot.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] its all about MONEY, if the player thinks the clause is worth more than the team thinks its worth (how many less dollars did peavy take to get the clause?) then both sides are happy with it. Frayed Knot May 21 2009 08:26 PM ="smg58"]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. He was also on the verge of Free-Agency and used his No-Trade Clause to, in effect, negotiate a FA contract a year before he would have otherwise been able to. Smart move as it turned out. If he came out this year he would have had to compete with the likes of Burnett & Sabathia (something he may have foresaw) and in a bad economy (something he probably didn't). Peavy, on the other hand, is already signed through 2012. ]Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway. I guess if that's the final piece that gets the player to agree to a deal rather than take it on a year-by-year basis then the GM offers it. Santana having that power prior to ever reaching FA-gency was an unusual case. Ceetar May 22 2009 07:25 AM Given how Peavy's pitched in the playoffs, and how he seems to be scared of the AL, I think i'm glad the Mets don't seem to be considering him at all.

[Fman99]

This is not a done deal necessarily. He has to approve the trade and he's known to want to stay in the NL.

[smg58]

He gives up more than his share of home runs pitching in Petco. He's not going to like US Cellular.

[metirish]

His agent says Peavy wants to stay in the NL.

[Guest LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr]

Peavy: You're f*cking out, White Sox. (Without named sources attached and unconfirmed by the principals, but CBS and ESPN seem to be running with it.)

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270335/15161683

[metirish]

I'm watching MLB Network's "On-Deck Circle" and they are reporting that Peavy said no.....Larkin then pipes in about time he got traded to the Mets " I nixed that deal because terms of a multi-year deal couldn't be worked out"....

[smg58]

Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player.

Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.

[Guest OlerudOwned]

="smg58":14ox7vdi]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.[/quote:14ox7vdi] Players like having a choice in where they get traded to. Unless every front office colludes on stopping the practice, there's going to be at least one franchise willing to go that road to sweeten the pot.

Nymr83 May 21 2009 08:15 PM

="OlerudOwned":3g5bq3dh] ="smg58":3g5bq3dh]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] Players like having a choice in where they get traded to. Unless every front office colludes on stopping the practice, there's going to be at least one franchise willing to go that road to sweeten the pot.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] its all about MONEY, if the player thinks the clause is worth more than the team thinks its worth (how many less dollars did peavy take to get the clause?) then both sides are happy with it. Frayed Knot May 21 2009 08:26 PM ="smg58"]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. He was also on the verge of Free-Agency and used his No-Trade Clause to, in effect, negotiate a FA contract a year before he would have otherwise been able to. Smart move as it turned out. If he came out this year he would have had to compete with the likes of Burnett & Sabathia (something he may have foresaw) and in a bad economy (something he probably didn't). Peavy, on the other hand, is already signed through 2012. ]Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway. I guess if that's the final piece that gets the player to agree to a deal rather than take it on a year-by-year basis then the GM offers it. Santana having that power prior to ever reaching FA-gency was an unusual case. Ceetar May 22 2009 07:25 AM Given how Peavy's pitched in the playoffs, and how he seems to be scared of the AL, I think i'm glad the Mets don't seem to be considering him at all.

[nymr83]

="OlerudOwned":3g5bq3dh] ="smg58":3g5bq3dh]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] Players like having a choice in where they get traded to. Unless every front office colludes on stopping the practice, there's going to be at least one franchise willing to go that road to sweeten the pot.[/quote:3g5bq3dh] its all about MONEY, if the player thinks the clause is worth more than the team thinks its worth (how many less dollars did peavy take to get the clause?) then both sides are happy with it. Frayed Knot May 21 2009 08:26 PM ="smg58"]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player. He was also on the verge of Free-Agency and used his No-Trade Clause to, in effect, negotiate a FA contract a year before he would have otherwise been able to. Smart move as it turned out. If he came out this year he would have had to compete with the likes of Burnett & Sabathia (something he may have foresaw) and in a bad economy (something he probably didn't). Peavy, on the other hand, is already signed through 2012. ]Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway. I guess if that's the final piece that gets the player to agree to a deal rather than take it on a year-by-year basis then the GM offers it. Santana having that power prior to ever reaching FA-gency was an unusual case. Ceetar May 22 2009 07:25 AM Given how Peavy's pitched in the playoffs, and how he seems to be scared of the AL, I think i'm glad the Mets don't seem to be considering him at all.

[Frayed Knot]

="smg58"]Johan had a full no-trade clause as well; not sure if we were luckier, or more generous, or simply dealing with a more reasonable player.

He was also on the verge of Free-Agency and used his No-Trade Clause to, in effect, negotiate a FA contract a year before he would have otherwise been able to. Smart move as it turned out. If he came out this year he would have had to compete with the likes of Burnett & Sabathia (something he may have foresaw) and in a bad economy (something he probably didn't).
Peavy, on the other hand, is already signed through 2012.

]Which brings us to the obvious question: why would any even vaguely competent GM give a no-trade clause to a player who is already under his team's control? If you're that concerned about saving a few dollars in the negotiating process, then it's only a matter of time before the player in question becomes too expensive to keep anyway.

I guess if that's the final piece that gets the player to agree to a deal rather than take it on a year-by-year basis then the GM offers it. Santana having that power prior to ever reaching FA-gency was an unusual case.

[Ceetar]

Given how Peavy's pitched in the playoffs, and how he seems to be scared of the AL, I think i'm glad the Mets don't seem to be considering him at all.