Bowman: Braves trying to trade Swisher

[The Chosen One]

675413073792999424


Or, the Braves could just pay Bowman to eat it.

[bravesfanforlife88]

675413073792999424


Or, the Braves could just pay Bowman to eat it.

:Bowman:

[Tapate50]

:Bowman:

He had heard of Swisher Sweets and got confused

[Russ2dollas]

He was salary movement. So anything we get back is gravy imo

I thought maybe he could be a good pinch hitter and move at deadline for a c prospect if costs a team 5 million or less

[Julio3000]

So anything we get back is gravy

Is it?

:Bowman:

[Chico]

I don't even care about the return. Just find someone willing to take on some of his salary and move him.

[mqt]

I don't even care about the return. Just find someone willing to take on some of his salary and move him.

I doubt there's such a team.

[50PoundHead]

The C. Johnson for Bourn and Swisher was the oddest trade made by the front office. I get those two are off the books after 2016, but they can't play anymore (not that C. Johnson necessarily could). If they can get any appreciable return, they should just do it even if they have to eat a smorgasbord-sized portion of Swisher's salary.

[bravesfanMatt]

I doubt there's such a team.

not without eating 90% of salary.. I always thought they would get some ABs this season and build whatever value they can.. deadline deal where we eat their salary for a better return.. either way we eat the salary.. but now the return will be nothing..maybe a D type prospect..
this is why I never understood the Beckham/Emilio signings.. they are cheap sure.. but are just more junk to add to the Bourn and Swisher Junk.. we had internal options that could play anywhere Emilio and Beckham can.. Maybe the scouts think there is more there in those two.. we will see..

[UNCBlue012]

I like a Swish, but who would really want the guy? I guess he's a good bench piece. The only way to have someone take him would be to add a decent prospect though, I'd guess. If not, we are paying a good bit of that contract.

I am getting more and more excited about the [supposed] money we should have next year.

[Heyward]

I like a Swish, but who would really want the guy? I guess he's a good bench piece. The only way to have someone take him would be to add a decent prospect though, I'd guess. If not, we are paying a good bit of that contract.

I am getting more and more excited about the [supposed] money we should have next year.

We'll have money but next years FA class blows.

Best SP is Strasburg.

Best hitters are Wieters, Gomez, Joey Bats, Rasmus, Josh Reddick, meh.

Lot of good closers: Storen, Melancon, Chapman, Jansen, few others.

[AerchAngel]

I must miss the joke.

Is Bowman that hefty?

[cajunrevenge]

Well no ****.

[dak]

In one of John Hart's radio interviews this week, he mentioned that they were looking to add a player that could play the corner positions. Kelly Johnson, I assume. Makes sense to dump Swisher if that's the cases. Can't imagine we could move any more than $2-3m of his salary.

[rawwr]

The C. Johnson for Bourn and Swisher was the oddest trade made by the front office. I get those two are off the books after 2016, but they can't play anymore (not that C. Johnson necessarily could). If they can get any appreciable return, they should just do it even if they have to eat a smorgasbord-sized portion of Swisher's salary.

I don't know, I thought it made perfect sense if their plan really was to be competitive in 2017; it was just a very NBA-esque sort of move. Granted, we're not having to work with a hard salary cap like in the NBA, but if you have budget constraints and you have no plans to compete for a year, it makes sense to shift liabilities to that year in order to free up money the following one.

That said, until the Miller trade I don't think it made sense to expect the team to be competitive by 2017 (still think 2018 is the earliest realistic expectation), and they couldn't have possibly predicted they'd get what they got for Miller.

[rico43]

Keeping Swisher would make sense only if they traded Freeman. With it pretty much cast in stone that he's staying, I'd say there's a longshot that an AL team might want to take Swisher pending his physical. But I'm afraid the Braves are seeing that his knees aren't getting any better -- other teams will see that as well. Feel that they're pretty much stuck with him.

[Knucksie]

Back during Scout days, there was a contingent of "statheads" who thought that Swisher would be a good acquistion for ATL. Besides the fact that he's always been a buffoon, yours truly attempted to reason with group. OPS was the flavor of the month. So, the thinking was that if you want to build a championship-caliber team, you try to include winners. Swisher had fairly extensive post-season experience, but perform abyssmally in all but one series.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/s/swishni01.shtml

Career post-season OPS of .575, which was even artificially high because of that one ALDS with the Yankees. Anyway, I asked them directly what exactly they liked about him. Nobody responded. A forum member, who has also posted in this thread, messaged me to suggest that it was probably because he had previously been with the A's, and all the Billy Beane worship associated with it. Of course, Billy Beane must've figured out that he was never going to make any team better, but that never entered into the equation.

[50PoundHead]

I don't know, I thought it made perfect sense if their plan really was to be competitive in 2017; it was just a very NBA-esque sort of move. Granted, we're not having to work with a hard salary cap like in the NBA, but if you have budget constraints and you have no plans to compete for a year, it makes sense to shift liabilities to that year in order to free up money the following one.

That said, until the Miller trade I don't think it made sense to expect the team to be competitive by 2017 (still think 2018 is the earliest realistic expectation), and they couldn't have possibly predicted they'd get what they got for Miller.

I think equating it to an NBA-type move is a very good way of putting it. I just think it's never a great move, regardless of how much money you have, to pay players to play for someone else or not play at all. I just don't think either Bourn or Swisher have anything left in the tank. I always bemoaned the decision to extend C. Johnson. Talk about odd moves; clearly one of Wren's oddest. But I wonder if they would have been better off just trading him for peanuts and sent along some coin in his back pocket and treated that as a sunken cost.

[buck75]

Maybe he could be traded for a pitcher whose salary is approximately the same.

[Prikichi]

Swisher for Shields straight up? Maybe throw in a low level prospect. We take on Shields' money for the remainder of his contract and they'll take Swish of our hands.

[mfree80]

We'll have money but next years FA class blows.

Money doesn't have to be spent in Free Agency. It allows you to take back salary in trades. I don't know who they might be looking at in the trade market, but taking back a good player with a salary that doesn't fit on his current team has been done before.... with good success.

[mossy]

They took on Bourne and Swisher, meaning...they hated Chris Johnson that much. Wasn't really about the money, it was a change of scenery.

I doubt Swisher gets moved. Package him with any player someone is salivating over and force them to take the contract too.

[Russ2dollas]

They took on Bourne and Swisher, meaning...they hated Chris Johnson that much. Wasn't really about the money, it was a change of scenery.

I doubt Swisher gets moved. Package him with any player someone is salivating over and force them to take the contract too.

No way

Don't give up talent.

We suck in 16. We are not spending any money we save. Eat the money and the pain is gone at yrs end

[mqt]

My only hope is that at some point we can move Swisher for a low level prospect like we did with Gomes. Just eat the money he's owed and get a speculative guy that likely amounts to nothing. Certainly a better outcome than keeping Swisher all year.

[Horsehide Harry]

My only hope is that at some point we can move Swisher for a low level prospect like we did with Gomes. Just eat the money he's owed and get a speculative guy that likely amounts to nothing. Certainly a better outcome than keeping Swisher all year.

There's a possibility that Swisher becomes a .250 20+HR guy again. Not great, but valuable.

[Dalyn]

Going to package him with Freeman like they did BJ with Kimbrel.

[BedellBrave]

I hope not - that severely diminishes Freeman's value. I'd rather they just eat Swisher's salary if they are going to trade him.

[smootness]

Going to package him with Freeman like they did BJ with Kimbrel.

Ha

[Dalyn]

I hope not - that severely diminishes Freeman's value. I'd rather they just eat Swisher's salary if they are going to trade him.

Me too. 2016 is a lost year as far as being competitive goes, so there's no reason not to just play him until the deadline and release him if we can't get a deal.

[Horsehide Harry]

Going to package him with Freeman like they did BJ with Kimbrel.

You trade Freeman and play Swisher at 1B. If he does well and builds trade value, you move him for what you can get at the deadline. If not, he's a warm body to stand at 1B for six months.