Powering Up

[Carp]

And I would add that he has no trade value and is unlikely to EVER have any.

The Bourn & Swisher cuts are just idiotic at this point. You have HAVE to pay them. A lot. A lot of money. No matter what you got back from Cleveland.

This team isn't going to contend no matter how much ruby slipper rubbing anyone does.

Both Swisher and Bourn were signed to such huge contracts because they had a history of performance. Now, will they ever play well enough to justify their salary again? Highly, highly unlikely. But they don't have to play all star baseball to be useful to the Braves. At a minimum you get the veteran "presence." Maybe even some mentoring. If either (best case both) regain some form, then they would be worth SOMETHING in trade when teams start needing veteran bats.

Let's say Swisher hits .240, .340 OBP, with 10 HR before the all-star break. At a minimum, with the Braves paying all his salary, he would be worth a low level flyer, maybe more. Same for Bourn.

I would feel differently if they were blocking youngsters from playing. But, they aren't and are unlikely to do so any time before the break. They could be released at any time during the season at no difference in releasing them now except for the possibility of not hanging on to Drew Stubbs.

Completely disagree. Stubbs was valuable as recently as 2014 and age is still on his side at only 31 years of age. Bourn and Swisher both have nothing left in the tank. Stubbs essentially gives you the potential of the best of both Bourn and Swisher. He provides the power bat off the bench that Swisher would have been and he provides the defensive versatility and speed off the bench that Bourn supplies.

I'd personally would rather have Stubbs among all 3 options, but none of them are likely to be extremely usefull anyways.

 

[nsacpi]

Stubbs OPS the last four seasons: .610 (in 544 PAs), .665 (in 481 PAs), .821 (in 424 PAs), and .665 (in 140 PAs).

Given his track record, I think something along the lines of a .650 OPS is a reasonable projection for 2016.

I would take him over Francoeur. But there are some younger guys who we could have slotted into the backup center fielder spot who project about the same in 2016, but would also be under contractual control for 5-6 year and would have a bit more upside due to their age.

 

[Carp]

Stubbs OPS the last four seasons: .610 (in 544 PAs), .665 (in 481 PAs), .821 (in 424 PAs), and .665 (in 140 PAs).

Given his track record, I think something along the lines of a .650 OPS is a reasonable projection for 2016.

I would take him over Francoeur. But there are some younger guys who we could have slotted into the backup center fielder spot who project about the same in 2016, but would also be under contractual control for 5-6 year and would have a bit more upside due to their age.

I'd agree with that. Not sure the reasoning behind it, other than the veteran presence part.

 

[JohnAdcox]

It's a bit like getting excited about a 28th round pick or the Rule 5 draft. It is arcane and geeky. You don't have to participate if it ain't your cup o tea.

When it's that funny, bring it on.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Completely disagree. Stubbs was valuable as recently as 2014 and age is still on his side at only 31 years of age. Bourn and Swisher both have nothing left in the tank. Stubbs essentially gives you the potential of the best of both Bourn and Swisher. He provides the power bat off the bench that Swisher would have been and he provides the defensive versatility and speed off the bench that Bourn supplies.

I'd personally would rather have Stubbs among all 3 options, but none of them are likely to be extremely usefull anyways.

I hate paying guys not to play. It would be different if you were doing it because you didn't want to block a piece of the future. But that's not what this is. They are keeping Stubbs and Francouer (and paying them) and letting Swisher and Bourn go (while paying them big) in the off chance that Stubbs and Frenchy might marginally (as in some fraction of a win) be the better players today. Given that, I think it's better just to hang on to both Bourn and Swisher. If you can move either or both at any time during the season and all you get is salary relief in return, then you come out ahead. Even if you can't, the downside is that you pay them (which you do anyway) and you don't have to pay Stubbs and Frenchy.

If the Braves were going to go this route by cutting ties with Bourn and Swisher, they should have chosen an outfielder(s) from Rule 5 and carried them for their potential at the ML level even if they aren't ready today. At least that way you
at least potentially move the needle as part of the rebuild.

 

[50PoundHead]

Stubbs OPS the last four seasons: .610 (in 544 PAs), .665 (in 481 PAs), .821 (in 424 PAs), and .665 (in 140 PAs).

Given his track record, I think something along the lines of a .650 OPS is a reasonable projection for 2016.

I would take him over Francoeur. But there are some younger guys who we could have slotted into the backup center fielder spot who project about the same in 2016, but would also be under contractual control for 5-6 year and would have a bit more upside due to their age.

But Stubbs' career OPS at home in such hitters' havens as Cincinnati, Texas, and Colorado was .802 and it was .621 on the road (109 more PAs on the road). Just color me skeptical.

 

[nsacpi]

But Stubbs' career OPS at home in such hitters' havens as Cincinnati, Texas, and Colorado was .802 and it was .621 on the road (109 more PAs on the road). Just color me skeptical.

So you're saying my .650 for 2016 might be optimistic?

 

[50PoundHead]

So you're saying my .650 for 2016 might be optimistic?

Just a tad unless they only play him in Cincinnati and Colorado.

 

[Julio3000]

I hate paying guys not to play. It would be different if you were doing it because you didn't want to block a piece of the future. But that's not what this is. They are keeping Stubbs and Francouer (and paying them) and letting Swisher and Bourn go (while paying them big) in the off chance that Stubbs and Frenchy might marginally (as in some fraction of a win) be the better players today. Given that, I think it's better just to hang on to both Bourn and Swisher. If you can move either or both at any time during the season and all you get is salary relief in return, then you come out ahead. Even if you can't, the downside is that you pay them (which you do anyway) and you don't have to pay Stubbs and Frenchy.

If the Braves were going to go this route by cutting ties with Bourn and Swisher, they should have chosen an outfielder(s) from Rule 5 and carried them for their potential at the ML level even if they aren't ready today. At least that way you

at least potentially move the needle as part of the rebuild.

I agree about the way we ended up using those spots, but in this case we were going to pay SOMEONE (CJ or Bourn/Swish) not to play. My real objection is to signing dumb contracts. If we could have traded one of those guys, we would have. Nobody wants them. Given their contracts, CJ, Bourn, and Swisher had negative market value.

I don't get the whole "play them and see if they rebuild some value" thing with regard to Swisher and Bourn. Those guys are on the wire for league minimum right now, and so far no one is taking that flyer.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I agree about the way we ended up using those spots, but in this case we were going to pay SOMEONE (CJ or Bourn/Swish) not to play. My real objection is to signing dumb contracts. If we could have traded one of those guys, we would have. Nobody wants them. Given their contracts, CJ, Bourn, and Swisher had negative market value.

I don't get the whole "play them and see if they rebuild some value" thing with regard to Swisher and Bourn. Those guys are on the wire for league minimum right now, and so far no one is taking that flyer.

They are out there right now at the minimum with no takers because they haven't shown anything. If, I say IF, they get 50 games and show that they are even a shell of their former self, they build that value, and could potentially develop enough value to at least provide the Braves with some salary relief. If the Braves cut them, as they have done, they are writing them off in a financial sense but also investing dollars in other iffy assets that have no long term pay off.

As for the wisdom of the Johnson for Bourn/Swisher swap, I'm not arguing that at all except to say that if you aren't going to give Bourn and Swisher a chance to build value in 2016 then why do the deal at all? Why not DFA and cut Johnson?

The only way what they are doing makes any sense is if Francouer and/or Stubbs catch fire early in the year similar to what happened with Uribe and K Johnson last year. But, it seems to me that the likelihood of that happening is no better than it happening with Bourn and Swisher and if it doesn't happen with Bourn and Swisher the loss is already recognized whereas Stubbs and Frenchy would be loss upon loss.

 

[Julio3000]

They are out there right now at the minimum with no takers because they haven't shown anything. If, I say IF, they get 50 games and show that they are even a shell of their former self, they build that value, and could potentially develop enough value to at least provide the Braves with some salary relief. If the Braves cut them, as they have done, they are writing them off in a financial sense but also investing dollars in other iffy assets that have no long term pay off.

As for the wisdom of the Johnson for Bourn/Swisher swap, I'm not arguing that at all except to say that if you aren't going to give Bourn and Swisher a chance to build value in 2016 then why do the deal at all? Why not DFA and cut Johnson?

The only way what they are doing makes any sense is if Francouer and/or Stubbs catch fire early in the year similar to what happened with Uribe and K Johnson last year. But, it seems to me that the likelihood of that happening is no better than it happening with Bourn and Swisher and if it doesn't happen with Bourn and Swisher the loss is already recognized whereas Stubbs and Frenchy would be loss upon loss.

I agree that the best move would have been to DFA CJ.

But when considering that Bourn/Swisher haven't been picked up, you also have to consider that any team could have them for the league minimum, so any rebuilding team could pick them up for a song if they thought they could rebuild enough value to trade them. So far, no one has.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I agree that the best move would have been to DFA CJ.

But when considering that Bourn/Swisher haven't been picked up, you also have to consider that any team could have them for the league minimum, so any rebuilding team could pick them up for a song if they thought they could rebuild enough value to trade them. So far, no one has.

That is correct. But, it's late in ST with opening day now here. There really wasn't time for any team to move on them. I would say that the Braves actually did them a dis-service by holding them as long as they did. Now, they both likely have to go the minor league route and show something there. Since they are both long standing veterans who have made their money, they may be unwilling to go that route and we may have seen the last of both.

It's not like both completely face planted ST. They both hit about .240 with an OPS of less than .650 but Swishers OBP was .360 and Bourn had 2 triples which showed that some of the speed was still there. Both had 50 AB or less. Francouer had the better spring with an OPS of .779 in 58 AB, based largely on his better slugging numbers. His OBP was .365 which was pumped up by an unsustainable average of .310. Stubbs had a .778 OPS in 45 abs boosted mostly by his power numbers.

And the thing is Stubbs and maybe even Francouer could have been signed and placed in AAA, at least much more so than Bourn and Swisher. They could have been on deals that called for their release if they were not in the ML by June.

Again, if Braxton Davidson hit .320 last year through 2 levels with 30 hr and they felt like Bourn and/or Swisher was going to block him, then by all means.

 

[Julio3000]

Your point about how the Braves utilized those roster spots is well taken. It just looked to me like Nick was cooked and the idea of his getting any kind of meaningful PT is repugnant. Bourn may have more to offer but doesn't really have a role on this team.

 

[Dalyn]

Reading the tea leaves these are some things that I think may be part of Fredi's plan:

1) Garcia and Peterson get most of the PT at third and second. Adjustments will be made if those two do not grab the opportunity and run with it.

2) Go lefty righty with the first six spots of the lineup: Inciarte, Aybar (switch hitter), Freeman, Garcia, Markakis, Olivera

3) Most days, KJ will be our primary (only?) lefty bat on the bench. It is worth noting that Francoeur and Stubbs both have fairly pronounced conventional career splits. Do not be fooled by their reverse splits in 2015 (I'm talking to you Fredi). That's one of those fluky small sample size things.

4) When KJ starts, sit Jace or one of the other lefty hitters so we have a lefty pinch hitter on the bench.

Reading the tea leaves these are some things that I think may be part of Fredi's plan:

Fredi's plan:

 

[clvclv]

They are out there right now at the minimum with no takers because they haven't shown anything. If, I say IF, they get 50 games and show that they are even a shell of their former self, they build that value, and could potentially develop enough value to at least provide the Braves with some salary relief. If the Braves cut them, as they have done, they are writing them off in a financial sense but also investing dollars in other iffy assets that have no long term pay off.

As for the wisdom of the Johnson for Bourn/Swisher swap, I'm not arguing that at all except to say that if you aren't going to give Bourn and Swisher a chance to build value in 2016 then why do the deal at all? Why not DFA and cut Johnson?

The only way what they are doing makes any sense is if Francouer and/or Stubbs catch fire early in the year similar to what happened with Uribe and K Johnson last year. But, it seems to me that the likelihood of that happening is no better than it happening with Bourn and Swisher and if it doesn't happen with Bourn and Swisher the loss is already recognized whereas Stubbs and Frenchy would be loss upon loss.

How many times do they have to answer that question? Since the day the trade was made the answer was (and continues to be) that they wanted to clear salary commitments from the 2017 books.

Keeping CJ for any reason would keep them from accomplishing that goal. He was traded simply because they couldn't do that without doing so - NOT because they were expecting anything out of either player other than Bourn possibly giving them a warm body this season to bridge the gap to Mallex. They had no inkling that Inciarte would be part of the roster when the trade was made. If they wouldn't have made the deal and couldn't find another sucker to take Johnson off their hands, his money would still be on the 2017 books - even if they released him. The money more or less was a wash and they cleared space for 2017 so it made plenty of sense even if they'd have released Swisher the day the trade was made like they did with Carlos Quentin.

As for giving them "50 games to show that they're even a shell of their former self", come on. Bourn hasn't been close to that in 3 years. He played 336 games with the Indians, and his BEST stretch was the 2013 season where he slashed .263/.316/.360/.676 with an OPS+ of 91. It's been going steadily downhill ever since. He had a chance to make himself at least somewhat valuable when Fredi played him last season, and he responded with 46 games of .221/.303/.257/.561 and a 60 OPS+. Why did he deserve another 50 game opportunity to miraculously revive his career when he didn't do it last summer?

He was so bad that they were already thinking about cutting him and playing Frenchy as the backup CF before signing Stubbs. A .650 OPS from Stubbs would be a HUGE improvement over Bourn - with both more speed and better defense at this point.

If you want to argue that the brass "screwed up", we needn't look far since we already had a better player than Bourn, Stubbs, or Frenchy that actually "fit" before we traded Maybin. His money would have been off the books after this season (his option was a team option), and he'd have been much more tradeable (even if it was just for someone with upside) than any of those guys if Mallex was ready before the deadline this summer.

 

[nsacpi]

Maybe the money saved by moving Maybin will allow us to sign Lazarito or some other hotshot prospect. That's the only angle from which that trade makes sense.

 

[50PoundHead]

How many times do they have to answer that question? Since the day the trade was made the answer was (and continues to be) that they wanted to clear salary commitments from the 2017 books.

Keeping CJ for any reason would keep them from accomplishing that goal. He was traded simply because they couldn't do that without doing so - NOT because they were expecting anything out of either player other than Bourn possibly giving them a warm body this season to bridge the gap to Mallex. They had no inkling that Inciarte would be part of the roster when the trade was made. If they wouldn't have made the deal and couldn't find another sucker to take Johnson off their hands, his money would still be on the 2017 books - even if they released him. The money more or less was a wash and they cleared space for 2017 so it made plenty of sense even if they'd have released Swisher the day the trade was made like they did with Carlos Quentin.

As for giving them "50 games to show that they're even a shell of their former self", come on. Bourn hasn't been close to that in 3 years. He played 336 games with the Indians, and his BEST stretch was the 2013 season where he slashed .263/.316/.360/.676 with an OPS+ of 91. It's been going steadily downhill ever since. He had a chance to make himself at least somewhat valuable when Fredi played him last season, and he responded with 46 games of .221/.303/.257/.561 and a 60 OPS+. Why did he deserve another 50 game opportunity to miraculously revive his career when he didn't do it last summer?

He was so bad that they were already thinking about cutting him and playing Frenchy as the backup CF before signing Stubbs. A .650 OPS from Stubbs would be a HUGE improvement over Bourn - with both more speed and better defense at this point.

If you want to argue that the brass "screwed up", we needn't look far since we already had a better player than Bourn, Stubbs, or Frenchy that actually "fit" before we traded Maybin. His money would have been off the books after this season (his option was a team option), and he'd have been much more tradeable (even if it was just for someone with upside) than any of those guys if Mallex was ready before the deadline this summer.

I think we could have balanced out the money in a Chris Johnson deal without having to take on Swisher and Bourn. I'm not arguing Johnson is any great shakes who was going to net us anything. I don't think all of Wren's moves warrant the label of original baseball sin, but signing Johnson to the level of contract that he did was clearly inexcusable. But that's not the point. We could have sent money with Johnson and netted a mid-level prospect. You can only spend a dollar once and having all commitments off the books after 2016 is laudable, but if you're spending money this year to get money off the books next year, you're still spending money. I would have preferred a different route in getting rid of Johnson.

 

[clvclv]

Maybe the money saved by moving Maybin will allow us to sign Lazarito or some other hotshot prospect. That's the only angle from which that trade makes sense.

I'd imagine that's the hope at this point. Now that we've got Inciarte it sure looks like a really bad mistake though. Keeping Cam could arguably have allowed us to carry an extra Pitcher since both he and Ender could've handled all 3 OF positions. Plus you'd have the flexibility of moving KJ or Peterson out there if necessary.

 

[clvclv]

I think we could have balanced out the money in a Chris Johnson deal without having to take on Swisher and Bourn. I'm not arguing Johnson is any great shakes who was going to net us anything. I don't think all of Wren's moves warrant the label of original baseball sin, but signing Johnson to the level of contract that he did was clearly inexcusable. But that's not the point. We could have sent money with Johnson and netted a mid-level prospect. You can only spend a dollar once and having all commitments off the books after 2016 is laudable, but if you're spending money this year to get money off the books next year, you're still spending money. I would have preferred a different route in getting rid of Johnson.

If there had been any other way to do it at the time, I'm sure they'd have considered it. Much like the Bonifacio signing (and several early ones the previous winter), they seemed to move a little too fast there. You're right that another (and possibly better) opportunity to rid themselves of CJ MIGHT have presented itself had they been patient IMO. Of course those things are always easy to see after the fact - quite a few people were so happy that CJ was gone that they were thrilled with the deal (myself included). Several things have happened since then that have changed that. At least they cleared the money - which was the goal to begin with - even if they didn't completely maximize the return. They get a bit of a pass from me since they accomplished the "big picture" goal, but we'll all always wish they could've done a little bit better.

 

[sturg33]

The trade didn't need to be made... The Braves could have very easily and simply accrued the money from the 2016 to budget and applied it to the 2017... this wasn't that complicated.