Braves interested in Chris Sale...

[nsacpi]

I think payroll flexibility is something to be careful about. The shorter the lengths of any contracts we take on the better. This is why some of these contracts that don't have much surplus value but only have two or three years to run have some attraction to me. Better those than signing a 30 something free agent for five years or longer.

[clvclv]

I will try one more time, I guess, but I think you have your head too far up your own backside admiring the plumbing to see reason.

It undermines the rebuild because it strangles your payroll flexibility just when you most need it and it can be most useful. If you have a bunch of contracts, and payroll, tied up with guys who are on a decline (Cespedes, Lucroy, Desmond) just when you are beginning to gain momentum with your home grown young talent, you starve your ability to add the pieces needed and you eliminate your ability to bring a real star, or semi-star, to the club when they are available.

Just because you decide you want to trade someone because they are no longer needed, especially when you don't have payroll flexibility to eat some of the owed money, doesn't mean you will be able to. Kemp was a good idea to somebody. Panda was a good idea. Hanley Ramirez was a good idea (even if he's not a total flop he isn't worth what they are paying him).

You realize there's a somewhat higher chance that someone will give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you could get past the personal shots, right?

Of course, since you want to use those particular examples as "good ideas", let's compare them to the ideas others have had that you hate so much...

LF - Kemp will cost $18 million/year from 2017-2019 plus prospects. Kemp would block Peterson or any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Cespedes is a far better option offensively and defensively, will sell more tickets, is a year younger, and is far more tradeable. How is Kemp a BETTER option? No one's saying he's a savior.

3B - Panda will cost $19+ million/year from 2017-2019. He too would block any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Desmond is a far better option offensively and defensively, can make it to the fridge without having to take a break, is less than a year older, can play all over the field, and is far more tradeable. How is Sandoval a BETTER option? Again, no one's saying he's a savior.

Ramirez? Even if you were to buy into the idea that he wouldn't be an absolute cancer in the clubhouse AND could play somewhere other than 1B (where we happen to have a better option), will cost $22 million/year through 2018, and is comparable defensively in LF to Gattis.

Those three would arguably be MORE in the way than the players some people would like to go out and sign this winter.

I've consistently said I'm on the fence. I agree with those that believe that adding a couple free-agents on 3-4 year deals combined with steps forward from the young pitching and the addition of Swanson, Albies, and Mallex could quite conceivably get them "in the mix" as early as next season. No one's said that would make them favorites, nor have they said it would guarantee anything. The main difference in the guys like Cespedes, Lucroy, Desmond, etc. is that it will be far easier to move them - even if you had to include a prospect to unload them - than the Kemps/Sandovals/Ramirezes who teams have already declined to take on.

I do completely support filling the holes where we don't have current close-to-ready "answers". We have huge questions about Ruiz and Riley, and I won't disagree that even a Turner or Prado would be a huge upgrade over Garcia. As of today, they'd be a huge upgrade over Ruiz or Riley. The same could be said for signing a Trumbo/Desmond/Reddick for 3 years to play LF. It's not going to hurt Peterson to spend a season in Gwinnett. If his power keeps coming, Trumbo would be easy to move, and Desmond could be utilized in other spots (same for Prado).

Most of the folks who are in favor of adding a few better players are in favor of adding players who provide flexibility - which one of Kemp/Sandoval/Ramirez does that?

[sturg33]

You realize there's a somewhat higher chance that someone will give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you could get past the personal shots, right?

Of course, since you want to use those particular examples as "good ideas", let's compare them to the ideas others have had that you hate so much...

LF - Kemp will cost $18 million/year from 2017-2019 plus prospects. Kemp would block Peterson or any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Cespedes is a far better option offensively and defensively, will sell more tickets, is a year younger, and is far more tradeable. How is Kemp a BETTER option? No one's saying he's a savior.

3B - Panda will cost $19+ million/year from 2017-2019. He too would block any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Desmond is a far better option offensively and defensively, can make it to the fridge without having to take a break, is less than a year older, can play all over the field, and is far more tradeable. How is Sandoval a BETTER option? Again, no one's saying he's a savior.

Ramirez? Even if you were to buy into the idea that he wouldn't be an absolute cancer in the clubhouse AND could play somewhere other than 1B (where we happen to have a better option), will cost $22 million/year through 2018, and is comparable defensively in LF to Gattis.

Those three would arguably be MORE in the way than the players some people would like to go out and sign this winter.

I've consistently said I'm on the fence. I agree with those that believe that adding a couple free-agents on 3-4 year deals combined with steps forward from the young pitching and the addition of Swanson, Albies, and Mallex could quite conceivably get them "in the mix" as early as next season. No one's said that would make them favorites, nor have they said it would guarantee anything. The main difference in the guys like Cespedes, Lucroy, Desmond, etc. is that it will be far easier to move them - even if you had to include a prospect to unload them - than the Kemps/Sandovals/Ramirezes who teams have already declined to take on.

I do completely support filling the holes where we don't have current close-to-ready "answers". We have huge questions about Ruiz and Riley, and I won't disagree that even a Turner or Prado would be a huge upgrade over Garcia. As of today, they'd be a huge upgrade over Ruiz or Riley. The same could be said for signing a Trumbo/Desmond/Reddick for 3 years to play LF. It's not going to hurt Peterson to spend a season in Gwinnett. If his power keeps coming, Trumbo would be easy to move, and Desmond could be utilized in other spots (same for Prado).

Most of the folks who are in favor of adding a few better players are in favor of adding players who provide flexibility - which one of Kemp/Sandoval/Ramirez does that?

I think you missed the point... He was saying that signing Kemp, Panda, and Hanley - while they seemed like good ideas at the time - turned out to be disasters and could set you back.

[Horsehide Harry]

You realize there's a somewhat higher chance that someone will give you more of the benefit of the doubt if you could get past the personal shots, right?

Of course, since you want to use those particular examples as "good ideas", let's compare them to the ideas others have had that you hate so much...

LF - Kemp will cost $18 million/year from 2017-2019 plus prospects. Kemp would block Peterson or any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Cespedes is a far better option offensively and defensively, will sell more tickets, is a year younger, and is far more tradeable. How is Kemp a BETTER option? No one's saying he's a savior.

3B - Panda will cost $19+ million/year from 2017-2019. He too would block any other inexpensive option until 2020. What's the difference? Desmond is a far better option offensively and defensively, can make it to the fridge without having to take a break, is less than a year older, can play all over the field, and is far more tradeable. How is Sandoval a BETTER option? Again, no one's saying he's a savior.

Ramirez? Even if you were to buy into the idea that he wouldn't be an absolute cancer in the clubhouse AND could play somewhere other than 1B (where we happen to have a better option), will cost $22 million/year through 2018, and is comparable defensively in LF to Gattis.

Those three would arguably be MORE in the way than the players some people would like to go out and sign this winter.

I've consistently said I'm on the fence. I agree with those that believe that adding a couple free-agents on 3-4 year deals combined with steps forward from the young pitching and the addition of Swanson, Albies, and Mallex could quite conceivably get them "in the mix" as early as next season. No one's said that would make them favorites, nor have they said it would guarantee anything. The main difference in the guys like Cespedes, Lucroy, Desmond, etc. is that it will be far easier to move them - even if you had to include a prospect to unload them - than the Kemps/Sandovals/Ramirezes who teams have already declined to take on.

I do completely support filling the holes where we don't have current close-to-ready "answers". We have huge questions about Ruiz and Riley, and I won't disagree that even a Turner or Prado would be a huge upgrade over Garcia. As of today, they'd be a huge upgrade over Ruiz or Riley. The same could be said for signing a Trumbo/Desmond/Reddick for 3 years to play LF. It's not going to hurt Peterson to spend a season in Gwinnett. If his power keeps coming, Trumbo would be easy to move, and Desmond could be utilized in other spots (same for Prado).

Most of the folks who are in favor of adding a few better players are in favor of adding players who provide flexibility - which one of Kemp/Sandoval/Ramirez does that?

First, you started the personal attacks. I will lay off if you will. If you don't care to read my posts or respond, please feel free to go about your merry way.

As for the rest, sturg33 is right, you missed my point which was you can sign highly (or semi-highly) thought of FA with it in the back of your mind that you can always trade them away and have that blow up in your face. Teams like the Dodgers, Red Sox and Yankees can afford those chances. The Braves can't. The Braves need to be selective and smart and not spend money simply because they have it to spend but spend it to make the team better.