Buster Olney on Peavy's no trade clause
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 21, 2008 10:07 AM CDT
25 comments
Jake Peavy has the power to block the Padres' efforts to trade him with the no-trade clause in his contract. For now, he is playing along, and has presented San Diego some guidelines. He'd prefer a National League team to an American League team, because the man likes to hit and run the bases. He'd prefer to play for the Houston Astros, or the Atlanta Braves, or the Dodgers or the Cubs or the St. Louis Cardinals. He'll listen if the Padres have other ideas, such as dealing him to the Yankees.
But in the end, there will be a price for his agreement, as his agent indicated Monday evening.
Barry Axelrod, the agent, was asked the question about whether Peavy will require some concessions to agree to a proposed trade. "Yup," he responded. "If Jake gets traded, then his 10-5 rights will disappear somewhere along the way. If he gets traded, we'll certainly require that he'll get a no-trade provision [with his next team]."
When a player's been in the big leagues 10 years, and five years with the same team, he has the right to veto a deal. If he were to stay with the Padres, he'd get those rights sometime in 2012. If he were traded to Atlanta, for example, it would take him another five years to build up the no-trade equity -- and under the terms of his current deal with the Padres, his ability to block trades will begin to slowly disappear in the years ahead -- he can block trades to 14 teams in 2011, and eight teams at the outset of 2012.
There may be other considerations, as well, Axelrod said, without elaborating. But Peavy certainly would have the leverage to extract more guaranteed money from his next team. Players in a similar situation as he is in have asked that a contractual option be exercised in return for waiving a no-trade clause, and Peavy has a $22 million option for 2013, with a $4 million buyout; he could just ask for more money in the buyout.
1 recs |
25 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Boy, you weren't kidding when you changed the subtitle of the blog, where ya AJM?
"M’s fans are such weenies." - Zywica
by lonestarJon on Oct 21, 2008 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy enticements
Sure, give him no-trade rights (if things are going bad in Texas, I’m sure he’ll want out anyway), and boost his incentives for Cy Young, All Star Game, etc.
Since he’s an Alabama boy, I’m sure he’ll prefer Atlanta, St Louis, or Houston. But Texas (and Tampa Bay) are the closest AL teams to his home.
by JBImaknee on Oct 21, 2008 11:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Houston
The problem there is they have nothing to offer San Diego.
I guess they could try a Hunter Pence/Wandy Rodriguez/J.R. Towles/Bud Norris package.
But I doubt that’s going to get it done.
by Adam J. Morris on Oct 21, 2008 12:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Atlanta
I think they’ll get it done.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 21, 2008 12:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
They would basically have to decide that it’s not in their best interests for me to see why they wouldn’t be the lead candidate. For example, Tommy Hanson is a much better prospect than Masterson, and Schafer is probably a better prospect than Ellsbury. But maybe they decide that they don’t want to move Hanson?
by Brett Perryman on Oct 21, 2008 1:21 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Frank Wren:
“Gentlemen, it’s not in our best interests for zywica to see why we wouldn’t be the lead candidate to acquire Jake Peavy.”
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 21, 2008 1:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hah, sorry for the uncomfortable wording.
by Brett Perryman on Oct 21, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Even if we could
I could see him wanting Eaton “crazy money” to pitch for the Ranger, before he cleared a trade. The Rangers have the best to offer (IMO) SD, but I could imagine a situation in which their front office wants to do the trade but Peavy demands a ludicrous restructuring of his contract before waiving his clause, thus killing any potential deal.
by joshed on Oct 21, 2008 12:46 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Peavy
I still don’t see the point of trading away 24 some odd years of pre free agency premium talent for a pitcher in the most extreme pitchers park in a much easier league for pitchers. Not to mention one in statistical decline with previous arm problems.
If they’d take an offer along the one Adam proposed above for the Stros I would think long and hard about it. The Rangers equivalent package would be something along the lines of Murphy/Hurley/MaxRam/Kiker and maybe a 5th much better prospect to make up for Murph & Hurley not being at the level of Pence & Wandy.
Not to mention the salary implications in 2010 and beyond with Young and Peavy making $31 million combined. Then it increases going forward 2011 $32, & 2012 $33. If the Rangers decided to push payroll from the current sub $70M to roughly $80 million a year these two players would account for over 40% of the yearly payroll.
This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC
by nikpin on Oct 21, 2008 12:54 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Financial Crisis
When does it begin to impact budget planning in pro sports?
by shroomer on Oct 21, 2008 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It has to affect this winter, doesn’t it?
by Brett Perryman on Oct 21, 2008 1:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Lots to think about
- Isn’t this the perfect time to have a cheap deep pool of talent to compete with? Is diluting it for a $100M contract financially responsible?
- If I’m the owners shouldn’t I be whining about agents demands being unrealistic in light of the coming depression in ticket/parking/concession sales?
- Wonder why Passan or Law or somebody hasn’t written an article about how GM’s are preparing for the coming imbalance between baseball salary demands and future depressed revenue.
Help wanted: MLB team seeks expert in 3D chess. Vulcan ancestry required.
by shroomer on Oct 21, 2008 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Law's reply
My Post: Hey Keith a little OT from your post, but I was wondering if you had planned anything about what kind of impact the financial "crisis" will have on payrolls this coming winter and what some(if any) FOT are saying about the issue.
Would make an interesting ESPN blog or post on here.
Law’s Reply: I don’t plan to, Nik, sorry. The topic doesn’t interest me at all.
This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC
by nikpin on Oct 21, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It seems like most leagues have at least broached the subject already. I’ve seen news that the NBA and some franchises are already laying off people. Its obviously going to hurt some owners more than others and Tom Hicks seems to be involved in an industry that might be more forlorn than some others.
This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC
by nikpin on Oct 21, 2008 1:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Effect uneven
That’s my thought, too, that the effects will be uneven, not much for some teams, more for others. As for players, I don’t think it greatly affects the Sabathias as much as your middle reliever types, who might have to settle for $1-2M instead of $3-5 or some such offer. It might also affect riskier signs like Bradley enough that he has to settle for a one year offer from TX.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
by t ball on Oct 21, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How exposed to the mortgage/securities markets are most ML orgs? ML owners?
Maybe when people quit showing up to games.
Go Strangers.
by hightowersmith on Oct 21, 2008 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Effect
Hasn’t hit even the steep upslope yet. After the derivatives sift down into ashes, you may see guys outside RBIA with signs that read “Will pitch for food”. Heh …….
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)
by Ed Coffin on Oct 21, 2008 4:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"24 some odd years of pre free agency premium talent"
You’re making a fundamental assumption that everyone we trade will be a premium major league player. Obviously that is the worst case scenario (not that you are trying to trade bums, of course).
Every player that is traded for Peavy will have substantially more risk than Peavy. He has some warning signs (who doesn’t), but here is a quick estimation of where he may go:
Peavy: 5% chance of disaster, 25% chance of downhill, 40% chance of very good production (occasional all star), 25% chance of great production (perennial all star, occasional CY contender), 5% chance of perennial Cy Young contender.
With everyone mentioned as the biggest trade chip (Feliz, Holland, Davis), the odds of them being an All Star are far, far lower. Maybe 15-20% range – max. Obviously IF they reach their potential (which is really capped at Peavy’s present value), they are far superior value than Peavy. But it is VERY LIKELY that they will not ever match his value.
You give a package of 4 solid/premium guys, then the odds are that ONE will become an all star at some point, but the Padres would still be lucky to see any of them even mentioned for a Cy Young.
Prospects are great. We all dream about seeing a World Series rotation of Feliz, Holland, Main and Beavan. But that just isn’t realistic. Odds are, only one of those guys will ever win 15 games in the major leagues. Odds are one won’t ever see Arlington or any other big league park. Its just the brutal truth.
by JBImaknee on Oct 21, 2008 4:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
All this is assumption
Nobody knows whether Peavy is going to come here and become the greatest pitcher in ML history or whether he comes here and shreds his labrum into a million little pieces and we end up having to eat his remaining $60m plus whatever we give him to waive his no trade clause.
Just like nobody knows what the prospects traded for him are going to do, but I do know that Davis makes 440K and Feliz & Holland will make 440K when they get called up. I’d be wiling to roll the dice that these guys don’t come even close to realizing their potential for the 13.5M+ a year saving for their first three non arb years.
This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC
by nikpin on Oct 21, 2008 5:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
obviously all of it is projecting.
I just get annoyed when people appear to go the spurdynasty route and say that any deal is a bad deal (not that you said that, necessarily). Many people spend so much time thinking about the best case scenarios for all of our prospects, that the mere idea of trading them is crazy. I bet we can find people here who wouldn’t trade Michael Main straight up for Tim Lincecum – just because in their mind, Main is already going to be as good as Lincecum and he’s under control for more years. And that may end up being right – but it is FAR more likely that Lincecum will be the better pitcher because he has already succeeded.
Similarly, it is far more likely that Peavy will be better from 2009 – 20013 than Feliz or Holland will. It just is. Just because we don’t know one way or another, doesn’t mean you can’t have some degree of confidence about that.
Now, your point about Peavy’s cost is a fair one – and that is something that JD needs to take into account, regardless of who may be traded. But the Rangers are going to have to answer that question regardless of whether they sign a Sabathia or Sheets, trade for Peavy, or a Greinke or whatever.
Obviously don’t want to trade Feliz or Holland – I don’t think that would be necessary to get him, and if it was, I would have to think long and hard about it. ‘A’ pitching prospects are rare things to see in Texas. But I think people shoudl be careful when judging a possible trade by weighing the worst-case scenario in Peavy and the best-case scenario in our prospects
by JBImaknee on Oct 21, 2008 6:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I understand where your coming from.
I just don’t think Peavy is the right kind of player for us to target. I don’t think we will be contenders in 2009 or possibly even 2010. Obviously the Rays have proven that teams can turn around their fortunes quicker than expected. In the Rangers case I don’t see that being as likely to happen. I’m much more in favor of making moves like the Brewers made this year when you are in contention at the half way point than I am in trading prospects that hopefully will be on Peavys level come 2012 in a season where we stand a good chance of finishing below .500.
Tim Lincecum is one of the few guys I would consider unloading the farm for under most scenarios.
I guess I’m not as confident that Peavy will have the same success he has enjoyed earlier in his career. Between the falling K rate, the elbow concerns, the home/road splits, & the rising walk rate. He also has some absurd 2007 stats that seem to have inflated his value. I wonder if the elbow injury has something to do with his reliance on his slider in 2007 which he seems to have backed off of this year.
I don’t advocate signing any pitcher to a long term big money deal as the pitchers listed command. I also don’t thing allocating 40% of your payroll to two players is a wise use of resources.(not that Young really has anything to do with Peavy but it is what it is)
I think for them to trade Peavy its going to take a A type pitcher. I’d say the Braves have the best shot with a package built around Tommy Hanson
This is the Texas Rangers, professional destroyers of hope, we're talking about. - BAC
by nikpin on Oct 21, 2008 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
