Hat tip to NEBravesFan33 for the link.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3659970

FW has apparently sent an email to the associated press debunking "most" of the rumors that have been posted lately on who's being offered for Peavy.  I for one am happy Wren has tried to clarify the Braves position, but I'm afraid he's left a few too many loose ends untied.  I want to say i'm clearly speculating here, but the lack of definitives in his statement opens the door for misinterpretation.  Unfortunately we don't get to see the entire email, so we're still left to "some" guessing.

Wren's first statement: "From our perspective we still feel the same and we are looking to the future when that next wave of talent I spoke of arrives in Atlanta,".  What does this mean?  It could mean exactly what most of us hope it means in that Heyward, Schafer and Hanson (among others) are not being offered.  BUT, it also could mean something else.  Rather than speculate, let's see what else is in the article.

Next we have: "Many of the trade speculations that have been written over the past few weeks are inaccurate,",  He goes on to clarify: "For the most part they are simply an outsider speculating what we might do and not what we would do.".  I have a love/hate opinion with this comment.  I love the fact he's proving some of our points about "don't believe everything that's written" but I hate the fact that he didn't specifically target some of the rumors.  Then again, why should we expect him to?  Unfortunately this leaves us right where we started, at least IMO, trying to guess who is on the board and who isn't.

Last, and probably the most important sentence in the entire article, the writer indicates that Wren believes Thomas Hanson will make his MLB debut at some point in 2009.  He also adds that we should not expect him to make the rotation right out of spring training.  Although it doesn't specifically state that his debut will be with Atlanta, I think it's safe to assume this will be the case.

So, does this article give us definitive proof of who's safe and who's not?  In my opinion, outside of Hanson, it does not.  What is your take?