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.
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.