That package for Price is insane. If it'd take that much, don't even both inquiring further. Let some other team clear its farm.
Intrigued by the possibility of signing Scherzer through. Definitely, they're going to monitor Hudson's progress, while also considering and upgrade to the veteran of the staff. In the end, there may not end up being a legitimate ace, but it wouldn't come as a surprise to see one new face from outside the organization.
This, in essence, is the reason for posing the question. Could Teheran turn into Scherzer in two years from now? Absolutely. If you're willing to wait that long, you'll still be putting your eggs in one basket since that would be the last year Justin and Heyward are under control (not to mention you likely no longer have Kimbrel in the 9th inning if your goal is to keep the core together beyond 2015). If Minor and Medlen continue to improve, their arbitration rewards will eat up any money you'd hope to invest in extending Kimbrel or any of your offensive pieces.
The question is, if the current financial constraints remain in place when Julio becomes that guy, how many shots are you going to have while you still have Freddie, Kimbrel, Justin, Heyward, B. J. and Simmons IF you have to pay him "Ace" type money? That answer is none if you have to pay market value for Kimbrel starting in 2015. If you trade him to maximize your return on him (which you absolutely should if the Braves' ownership situation doesn't change by then), suddenly you're dealing with a huge question mark at the end of games regardless of what type of offense you have.
The Braves won ONE Title with three Hall Of Famers - Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz - in the rotation and a marginal pen. Does anyone really think you're going to win with Teheran, Minor, and Medlen in the rotation without Kimbrel making every game an 8 inning affair??? The Tigers ran Verlander, Scherzer, and Sanchez out there with Miguel Cabrera, Prince Fielder, Victor Martinez, and Torii Hunter in their lineup with a much more questionable back end of their pen and wound up with little to show for it even though they paid way more money.
The main reason I pose the question is this - after having lived through 14 consecutive Division Championships with one Title, would you have been willing to give up a little bit of those last 3-4 years for another ring??? Lots of different answers, and they're all "right" depending on your reasoning. History typically measures "success" by the number of rings, not how many times you were "in the mix" - otherwise Dean Smith would be considered to be John Wooden's "equal".