Could you imagine the jerk factor if Lackey were throwing to AJ?Originally Posted by nsacpi
Could you imagine the jerk factor if Lackey were throwing to AJ?
Would be worth the price of admission. I remember Zambrano and his catcher getting into a fight.
zbhargrove (09-11-2015)
My only thing with guys like Lackey on short 2 year deals is why? If we aren't gonna be in contention the next 2 years then don't waste the money on somebody until we're ready to compete. If we aren't gonna get a ton better in the offseason to compete then just keep what u have and get another high pick.
Horsehide Harry (09-11-2015)
The same could be said of anyone we pick up for substantial money this off-season.
Lackey on two years versus Latos on four. What's the difference? After 2017, we get to make a new decision about the money allocated to Lackey. That's basically the difference.
I almost hate saying this, but given our performance since the trading deadline, I really have to. You do want to put a professional product on the field even if you aren't a contender. You owe that to the game. I'm not enamored with Lackey and I support the front office's decision to re-build, but there wouldn't have been anything wrong with signing Volquez or Hammel this past off-season to a two-year deal to round out the rotation. The same goes for the bullpen. The injury to Grilli and the trade of Avilan and Johnson has given us a bullpen that emigrated from the Island of Misfit Toys.
nsacpi (09-11-2015)
So if we know we have no shot at winning next year then we sign guys that can help make us a middle of the pack team. Then we can get a 15 or 16 pick instead of just letting the kids play and getting a better pick? It doesn't make sense to me. Don't spend the money and make us half ass, either do it right or don't do it at all.
auyushu (09-11-2015), Braves1976 (09-13-2015), Horsehide Harry (09-11-2015)
Well the logical conclusion is to trade Freeman, Simmons, Shelby. Why are we paying them significant money for seasons that are meaningless.
You pretty much nailed the exact pitchers I would like to see targeted this offseason: Leake, Latos (4 years max for both), and Lackey (only on a short 1-2 year deal). I also think Anderson might be a good buy low option.
Bc they're young? Signing a Price or Cespedes is different bc they'll still be here when we are ready to compete. Wasting money on an old vet just to get by makes no sense to me.
Horsehide Harry (09-11-2015), JohnAdcox (09-12-2015)
Things tend to shake themselves out. I don't see a middle-of-the-pack team right now and I don't think we'll see one in 2016. You can act like a group of professionals without contending. I'm just very disappointed in how the team has totally deflated since the trading deadline. Some of that can probably be laid at Fredi's feet, but it's really up to the players and the front office. There's no excuse for the state of our bullpen.
Our bullpen has been beyond terrible. Luckily we have a few pieces internally coming back from injury that can really help out next year. I do think we could use 2 SP this offseason. I like Leake so we'll see. Lf and C have to be addressed at some point to.
I disagree with this because it smells of half measures. If you aren't willing to rebuild and accept what that entails, then don't.
If you are going to rebuild then take the most effective and direct route through the rebuild to a point of being a real contender.
To me, all the "owe the game that much" rhetoric is just that. You owe the GAME to play by the rules.
Now, you may say that they owe the FANS better and that can be argued. But, the fans can always show their displeasure by not attending, watching, buying merchandise, etc. even though that really doesn't fit with getting the team back to being a contender ASAP because you are starving revenue.
To tie payroll up for any 2 year wonders would be INSANE, unless those two year wonders somehow help further the goal of a rebuilt contender some time in 2017 or soon after.
Braves1976 (09-13-2015), Hudson2 (09-11-2015)
Yes. You consider trading any and/or all of those guys for the right return if that return better fits the plan of the rebuild than does just hanging on to them for some misguided continuity through 2014-2016. Of those guys, the most valuable right now and the least replaceable Right NOW is Simmons because the value of the FA market is in starting pitching and if you are going to play in that market (which the Braves very much should) then having the best defensive short stop in baseball is certainly valuable.
Hudson2 (09-11-2015)
Teheran
Miller
Minor
Wisler/ Perez/ Jenkins
Folty/weber/manban
As of right now is this what to expect going into next season? I don't see that being a playoff contending rotation. Folty has not proven enough to me that he is a starter. To help offset our awful pen I think we need to put him in the pen, have him try to focus on 2 or 3 pitches, and assign him in the 7th or 8th inning.
There is a lot of uncertainty surrounding minor if he can come back or not. And I'm not paying someone that amount of money to throw out of the pen. So I think you should let him walk instead of offering a contract.
I firmly believe this team doesn't need to spend on a Price or Grenkie. But 1 or 2 pitchers like a Gallardo and lesser pitcher would do fine. Have to bet that Teheran will turn it around as he has shown signs, Shelby is a stud but not a full blown ace....yet....if you bring in a vet like a Gallardo he can help anchor the rotation 1 - 3 spots. The other 2 spots you have the other free agent pitcher or let wisler/manban/Jenkins/Perez fight it out for the spot.
I don't think you can afford to toss guys out there who clearly aren't ready and a lot of our rotation this year has simply not been ready. If you sign a Hammel or Volquez to a two-year deal, they are gone by the time your young pitchers are ready. I don't think we're doing Wisler any favors with his OJT.
GovClintonTyree (09-12-2015)
We have a budget. We won't get any credit from ownership by not using it. Also we can trade any FA's for younger prospects. It's just another way to "buy" prospects. I don't know who we will go after, but I don't think it's going to be a long term contract, and it's not going to be someone we get in a bidding war for and lose all of their value by overpaying for them. The rhetoric will be we're trying to be a playoff team before 2017, and if everything falls together we can be, but if it falls apart we have tradeable assets in July.
Correct. You use the budget to acquire wins but also assets.
Unlike some around here I'm satisfied with a competitive team. I find value as a fan in moving from a 75 win team to an 80 win team. And value moving from an 80 win team to an 85 win team, etc. It doesn't have to be a championship team (however you want to define that) or nothing for me. This colors how I look at this off-season. Sure we are building toward 2017 and beyond. But having an 80 win team in 2016 would be a source of pleasure for me and I want to see us use this off-season to improve the 2016 team even while keep an eye on the longer horizon.
50PoundHead (09-11-2015), dak (09-13-2015)
I have no problem with bringing in a short term guy where the plan is to move him for best available deal. The issue with going that route, let's say bringing in Lackey, Victorino, Kelly Johnson, Uribe, Buerhle, Jim Johnson, Belisle and Soria all veteran players who will likely get short term contracts (1-2 years), eating up your $30-$40M available to spend, then you very well might create an early illusion of competing. The team might middle around and be .500 at the trade deadline with the team improvement based on the backs of a bunch of aged veterans who likely won't be able to sustain through a season. Then, as a GM, if you follow through with the plan of moving them for best return, you get skewered by everyone, media, fans, and the team (hey, we were competing). Look at what happened this year (which was rather mild) when they moved KJ and Uribe and eventually Wood, this after they told everyone that the goal was 2017 before the season.
So, I am not against using resurgent, reclaim veterans to improve talent by trading to real contenders at the deadline, but it does have its downside.
However, I think there is a better way to do what you suggest through trade. I think the smart play is to take advantage of what I call cripple contracts (contracts for players who are reasonably good but are obviously overpaid for their production and their current team wants to move them) and/or bad fits (players who may be fine at what they do but aren't a current fit for the team they are on).
An example of a bad fit contract that could be moved would be Drew Storen with the Gnats. He's pissed and rightfully so and has no future with the Gnats. Could he be acquired cheaply? By some team but probably not Atlanta because they are in the same division.
A better way would be cripple contracts. The Braves have money to spend and don't Need that money to pay immediate benefits because they are rebuilding. As an example, I give you Matt Garza. He is on the outs with the Brewers. He had a down year in 2015 but is still relatively young (32) and has a career 3.99 era. He's obviously a cripple contract. The Braves could trade for him, take on his salary, but in exchange obtain a useful young player(s) such as: Garza and Brett Phillips Or Garza, Gilbert Lara and Josh Hader. Then, if Garza proves tradable at the deadline, the Braves maybe pay half his remaining salary and pick up another decent prospect.
If you sign Lackey he is going to cost you probably $10M per year over two years while Garza is $12.5M in 2016, 2017 and a $13M vesting option for 18. Both Lackey and Garza could be busts. The difference is that Garza gets you talent during the acquisition process and possibly when he is traded. Lackey is a straight cost with only a possibility of talent acquisition through a future trade.
I agree that you use the money in the budget. I just think that you use that money to further the goal which is building a competitive team for 2017 and beyond which means building the foundation through either current MLB talent that will be useful in 2017 and beyond AND in acquiring young talent (possible still in the minor leagues, maybe even in the low minors) that will be the core in 2017 and beyond or at least be part of the currency used to acquire the core for 2017 and beyond.
Considering the stated goal of being competitive in 2017 and beyond, I give NO thought to what the record might be in 2016 or even the state of play outside of how it affects the plan for 2017 and beyond. The Braves aren't going to win in 2016, not unless they fill about 6 holes with pretty good MLB talent (add power to the tune of about +80HR), get a good 2B, hope Olivera is good enough at 3B to at least be mentioned as an ALL Star, get a real catcher, add 2 useful SP, bring in at least 1 reliable LHR and 2 RHR and hope Viz can be at least an average closer.
Could the Braves bring in "band-aide" talent to get the wins up to 80? Maybe. But, so what? That still doesn't get you in the playoffs and certainly wins you nothing. It might make you a little less sick to your stomach in 2016 but it puts you right back in a similar situation in 2017. The money has been spent unwisely.
Hudson2 (09-12-2015)
I dont see them getting Price, Greinke, Zimmerman, Cueto, etc, but there's no reason they shouldnt dip into the FA market and get a starter or two below that tier like a Leake, Lackey, Brett Anderson, Estrada, Iwakuma, etc.
Going with Miller, Julio, Minor, Wisler, Perez, others, etc is just throwing away a season.
Not a terrible strategy honestly but i digress.
They should have enough money to sign at least 1 2-3 type of starter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote