FA Pitchers

[50PoundHead]

HH, you and I aren't that far apart (except I don't want Garza anywhere near the Braves' clubhouse). The Braves tried your approach in a limited way with the Cahill and Arroyo trades. There are clearly more expensive guys that that would fit into the same mold. I think Kelly Johnson, Jim Johnson, and Juan Uribe are all examples of bringing in lower cost FAs and hoping they have some "flip" value during the season, which all of these guys had (which doesn't necessarily mean the Braves got value for them when they traded them). Swisher and Bourn (to a lesser extent) fit into the approach you outlined as opposed to the Braves' initial approach.

What is different about this year (and likely next) is that we don't have minor league guys ready to assume the vacancy of a traded (or released) veteran. That probably changes a bit over the next couple of years as more guys become ready to contribute (read, not embarrass themselves) at the big league level. Even with the guys we traded, we're a low-to-mid 70s win team and we probably have a protected pick. Without the guys we traded, we simply don't have a big league team on the field, especially in the bullpen. It has just been so disheartening to watch this team over the past month and a half and this is coming from someone who felt that a rebuild was going to take place at some point and is ready to take the lumps inherent in a rebuilding effort.

[GovClintonTyree]

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.

You're absolutely right, Fiddy. You have to hope you haven't wrecked Wisler, Foltynewicz and Banuelos (and most of the bullpen) throwing them out there prematurely. Two things happen: you can wreck their heads and you wind of building a culture of losing.

You know, the impact of a 20-60 second half goes deeper than just a crappy half season with crowds of 8,000. Pretty soon you lose the thread and your feeling that you are a proud, winning organization that won't be down for long gives way to the 1993-2012 Pirates.

It takes a long time to wash that stench off.

[GovClintonTyree]

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.

I am in this camp, too, where I would derive enjoyment from incremental improvement. It's hard to see where that comes from right now, with so many kids that a) are not ready or b) never will be.

[NinersSBChamps]

So being a sub .500 team brings enjoyment to fans?

[nsacpi]

So being a sub .500 team brings enjoyment to fans?

What a couple of us said is we get enjoyment out of incremental improvement. That it doesn't have to be a championship team or nothing. I'm sure there are different views on this and I try to respect them.

[dak]

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.

Very well said. I haven't loved all the moves, but I credit the FO for tearing this roster down quickly and getting us to rock-bottom w/in one year so we can start building up in 2016. There's plenty of reason to be excited about the upward trajectory of this team heading into next year. We have $, MLB-ready trade assets, and strong talent in the low minors.

[NinersSBChamps]

What a couple of us said is we get enjoyment out of incremental improvement. That it doesn't have to be a championship team or nothing. I'm sure there are different views on this and I try to respect them.

Fair enough. I can understand that.

[dak]

Regarding FA pitchers in 2016, I hope to see us play in the middle of the market and focus on value. I'd also prefer to avoid guys with QOs in order to keep that 2nd round pick in the 40s. Like many others have said, I like Leake. I believe he's a California guy and SF will reportedly make a big push to resign him. So, I'm not expecting Leake to be a realistic option. I wouldn't mind taking a chance on a bounce-back guy like Fister or Lohse. Latos would fit that description as well, but I think he's too much of a knucklehead for the Braves to consider him.

[nsacpi]

Regarding FA pitchers in 2016, I hope to see us play in the middle of the market and focus on value. I'd also prefer to avoid guys with QOs in order to keep that 2nd round pick in the 40s. Like many others have said, I like Leake. I believe he's a California guy and SF will reportedly make a big push to resign him. So, I'm not expecting Leake to be a realistic option. I wouldn't mind taking a chance on a bounce-back guy like Fister or Lohse. Latos would fit that description as well, but I think he's too much of a knucklehead for the Braves to consider him.

Value is the key to me. I agree that it probably means the middle of the market (pitchers with projected WAR in the 2-3 range). And we will probably try to avoid signing guys that will cost us the draft pick we got from the Marlins. However, if we were able to get a value signing of someone like Price and Greinke I wouldn't be opposed to it. I just think it is unlikely. Those guys are likely to get deals close to the Scherzer deal (which was 30M per year, though backloaded). That's not a good signing price for Greinke or Price when you take into account their ages and likely aging profile.

[Horsehide Harry]

Value is the key to me. I agree that it probably means the middle of the market (pitchers with projected WAR in the 2-3 range). And we will probably try to avoid signing guys that will cost us the draft pick we got from the Marlins. However, if we were able to get a value signing of someone like Price and Greinke I wouldn't be opposed to it. I just think it is unlikely. Those guys are likely to get deals close to the Scherzer deal (which was 30M per year, though backloaded). That's not a good signing price for Greinke or Price when you take into account their ages and likely aging profile.

Anyone know how the agreement is worded? Is it give up your next draft pick (which at this point would be the one obtained from the Marlins) or is it give up your next team spot (which would be the Braves pick in the second round). Just curious.

[dak]

Anyone know how the agreement is worded? Is it give up your next draft pick (which at this point would be the one obtained from the Marlins) or is it give up your next team spot (which would be the Braves pick in the second round). Just curious.

I was not aware of this . . . it looks like teams with protected picks have to give up their second-highest pick, not their second round pick. If the season ended today and we had the second worst record, the pick we got from the Marlins would be just three slots higher than our second round pick. So, not a huge difference.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...ng-offers.html

[nsacpi]

Anyone know how the agreement is worded? Is it give up your next draft pick (which at this point would be the one obtained from the Marlins) or is it give up your next team spot (which would be the Braves pick in the second round). Just curious.

Your next pick

[Braves1976]

I was not aware of this . . . it looks like teams with protected picks have to give up their second-highest pick, not their second round pick. If the season ended today and we had the second worst record, the pick we got from the Marlins would be just three slots higher than our second round pick. So, not a huge difference.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/1...ng-offers.html

This is why it seems the Braves are planning to only go after players without QO's attached, why trade for that Competitive Balance Round A pick in next year’s draft (No. 35 overall) only to give it up?

[thewupk]

This is why it seems the Braves are planning to only go after players without QO's attached, why trade for that Competitive Balance Round A pick in next year’s draft (No. 35 overall) only to give it up?

I guess you could argue that they would still get their 2nd round pick which would be pretty close to the competitive balance pick. So without trading for it they wouldn't have a pick until the 3rd round.

With that being said I don't see the Braves doing much in FA besides the vet guys to round out the roster.

[nsacpi]

There are quite a few good to outstanding FA pitchers who will not have qualifying offers due to being traded during the season: Price, Cueto, Latos, Leake, Kazmir. And some of the ones I listed in groups 3 and 4 in my opening post might not get QOs even though their teams have the option of offering them. The potential targets where a QO might be an impediment are Samardzija and Zimmermann.

[thewupk]

There are quite a few good to outstanding FA pitchers who will not have qualifying offers due to being traded during the season: Price, Cueto, Latos, Leake, Kazmir. And some of the ones I listed in groups 3 and 4 in my opening post might not get QOs even though their teams have the option of offering them. The potential targets where a QO might be an impediment are Samardzija and Zimmermann.

That's a good point. If there was a year to go after FA pitchers it would be this year as a lot of top teir talent won't have the QO attached.

[Braves1976]

There are quite a few good to outstanding FA pitchers who will not have qualifying offers due to being traded during the season: Price, Cueto, Latos, Leake, Kazmir. And some of the ones I listed in groups 3 and 4 in my opening post might not get QOs even though their teams have the option of offering them. The potential targets where a QO might be an impediment are Samardzija and Zimmermann.

Kazmir is tops on my shopping list as I want another lefty to replace Wood. I also like making him a target because his likely AAV should work out better than a lot of other names you list. But with him I won't be surprised if Houston brings him back as it seems both sides have mutual interest already.

[Braves1976]

That's a good point. If there was a year to go after FA pitchers it would be this year as a lot of top teir talent won't have the QO attached.

That is another reason it seems they already decided to not sign anyone with a QO attached. They probably have some names in mind among the soon to be free agents to target that won't get a QO, that is my guess anyway.

[Braves1976]

BTW, as bad as Latos has been this year he's someone I'd target along with Kazmir. I'd target Latos because if healthy he can be a good pitcher again IMO. Plus coming off a bad season should make him a good value signing on a short term deal.

[nsacpi]

BTW, as bad as Latos has been this year he's someone I'd target along with Kazmir. I'd target Latos because if healthy he can be a good pitcher again IMO. Plus coming off a bad season should make him a good value signing on a short term deal.

Latos's strikeout and walk rates have been fine this year. But his strand rate is 10% below his career average and he's given up a BABIP 30 points above his career average. I'm willing to take a chance on those reverting. I think the main issue with him is whether his persona fits in with what the front office is looking for.