Talking Chop: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Guest Blogger: Juco All-American Answers Five Questions

Chiming in on the Braves Chances at getting Jake Peavy

Apparently the Padres are "officially" making starting pitcher Jake Peavy available for acquisition through trade:

"This was a different year than last year," general manager Kevin Towers said of the shift in priorities, before noting the difficulty. "You're arguably talking about moving one of the top pitchers in the game. But it's not a 100-percent given.

"Nothing is imminent."

So it's still not a bullish position, but it certainly means he's going to seriously consider every offer. But here's the rub, as a Padres beat writer notes, the Fathers don't have to trade Peavy:

I think there's a chance Peavy could get moved to another team before next season. But I think it's going to take a monster offer to get a deal done, meaning the Padres don't have to deal the right-hander.

He'll make $11 million in 2009, which is regarded as affordable by today's standards for a pitcher of his stature. If a team blows the Padres away with an offer of top Minor League prospects, with some being close to being Major League ready, I think the Padres could bite. The Braves have some interesting prospects to dangle. Stay tuned.

Peavy is signed through 2012, with an option for 2013, so the Padres, while needing to rebuild their club, don't have to settle for an offer like the Twins did for Johan Santana last year. They can hold out for a better offer next July 31st trading deadline, or for a better offer next winter.

The conventional wisdom says that the offer will have to equal or surpass the six prospects that Oakland got from Arizona for Dan Haren last winter, with a least a couple guys who are almost major league ready.

I don't know if that increases the competition or decreases the competition. There aren't many teams who would be willing to give up that many prospects, even for Peavy, and there are probably even fewer teams who meet the requirement of that many high-caliber prospects.

This is an opening offer, of course, but it's going to take a haul of prospects and San Diego really does hold all the cards -- because again, they don't have to trade Peavy.

The Braves have money this off-season, I would rather us spend it directly on free agents and not give up prospects. This is also an off-season where we don't have to surrender any draft picks no matter who we sign, so I say this is the perfect time to be players in the free agent market. If some other team is willing to mortgage so many prospects for one pitcher, I say let them. Sometimes it works out (Sabathia and the Brewers), and sometimes it doesn't (Haren and the D-Backs, Santana and the Mets).

0 recs  |  Comment 43 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I agree

that this is the time to play the FA game. Not having to surrender draft picks combined with a better than average free agent class is a win/win, even IF we don’t compete this year. I disagree with the beat writer’s opinion that the Padres don’t have to move Peavy. I personally think he WILL be traded, it just doesn’t make sense for the Pads to keep him. If they’re rebuilding, and that process will definitely take them more than three years considering where their at, why pay a pitcher that much money. He’s damn good, but he’s not really an “attraction” that will make people pay to watch the Padres play (ie, Barry Bonds in SF) especially if they’re sucking. It makes the most sense for Towers and team to move him for the best possible package thereby jump starting the rebuilding process.

Just my two cents.

by scstrato on Oct 14, 2008 10:54 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

This is germane:

Ryguy86 (NY): What’s an overwhelming package for Jake Peavy?
Joe Sheehan: A top-15 prospect, top-50, and top-75 guy, at least two of whom can be on the field by June.

Now, whether or not that’s really the price or not is debateable*, but who can even pay that for Peavy? The Braves could, what with Heyward, Hanson, and either Schafer or Gorkys, but what team would want to?

If the exchange were Heyward, Hanson, Schafer for Peavy, I can’t imagine that the Braves would win in the most likely scenario.

1st, how much will Peavy be worth over the next five years. PECOTA has him at 30 WARP in their mid-range projection for 2009-2013. Even if he sustains his current level of preformance, he’ll accumulate a max of 45 WARP from 2009-2013. Of course, an arm injury that reduces his effectiveness and/or causes him to miss significant time could make him worth less than 30 WARP. However, we’ll play with that number as a reasonable expectation of his value.

Add to that his salaries of $81 million (a very team friendly deal) and you have expenses of $81 million and preformance of 30 wins.

2. Now, what value will the three prospects deliver? It’s tough to determine exactly how much since none have played a major league game thus far, but we can make estimates based on past preformance of other prospects.

http://www.philbirnbaum.com/btn2007-08.pdf – Pages 3-6

The above study is helpful. The consensus in the prospect community seems to be that Heyward is a top 10 prospect, Hanson is a top 25 prospect, and Schafer is somewhere between 25 and 75, probably closer to the higher number. Using his mean values, Heyward can be expected to deliver ~24 WARP of value, Hanson can be expected to deliver 11 WARP of value, and Schafer somewhere less than 19 WARP. I’ll arbitrarilly assign him a low value of 12 WARP to account for his lower prospect status. That right there is ~47 WARP of value we’d be trading away.

Now, the obvious determining factor in trades involving prospects is how those prospects preform. Obviously the possibility that all three bust and provide ~10 WARP is there alongside the chances that they all excel and provide ~100 WARP. However, in a neutral projection they should provide about 150% of the value provided by Peavy during their time under team control. They will also be significantly cheaper – something like $15-25 million through their arbitration seasons.

The only argument I can see for acquiring Peavy involves a team that is literally an ace away from contending – a team in the 86-93 win sweet spot where the difference between a Peavy and a #5 starter is the difference between the playoffs and no playoffs. Those marginal and immediate wins may be worth losing future production and paying out more money, but the Braves aren’t in that situation at all. We’re better off developing three cheaper possible 5-7 WARP players rather than trading for the 6-9 WARP pitcher who costs a lot.

*I’ve seen expectations of Peavy’s cost involving several high level prospects (like Sheehan’s post) or involving 6 or more prospects including 1-2 high level guys and some lesser prospects. The WARP expectations for both groups are about the same. Lesser prospects should provide more of a chance that someone will contribute, but will produce less because of lesser skills.

by 17843 on Oct 14, 2008 11:29 PM EDT reply actions   1 recs

+1

This is really interesting stuff. The article is a little hard to read at times, but informative. It sounds like Mr. Wang would agree with using Hanson as the centerpiece in a trade for Peavy, rather than Heyward, because it’s more likely that Hanson will be a bust, and Peavy could be in Atlanta for up to 5 years at a reasonable price.

by buzzdeadwax on Oct 15, 2008 12:13 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Challenges to your logic

First, thanks for sharing. While I may not agree (just yet) it is always nice reading well organized, objective posts.

The first thing that came to mind is that you’re eliminating the value of the players who will hold down CF and RF in the event the “big 3” are traded. In other words, by your comparision, those positions would hold zero warp (or zero value). Considering the warp you assigned to the players in question, I’m assuming you consider Schafer and Hanson as “contributors” and Heyward as an “everyday”. According to the .PDF that puts Schafer and Hanson in the 12 to 24 warp range over a 6 year period with Heyward landing in the 24 to 36. Fair enough, I think that’s a solid prediction given their upside.

If I may, let’s assign warp to the players we currently have (again based on my interpretation of the .PDF file). Blanco = contributor (12 to 24) and Francoeur = contributor (12 to 24). I realize this is arguable but I have a hard time believing either are “busts”.

Now, considering both the low and the high, the formula’s (as I see them) workout like this:

-(low) Hanson (12), Schafer (12) and Heyward (24) = 48 WARP
-(low) Peavy (30), Blanco (12) and Francoeur (12) = 54 WARP

-(high) Hanson (24), Schafer (24) and Heyward (36) = 84 WARP
-(high) Peavy (45), Blanco (24) and Francoeur (24) = 93 WARP

Granted i’ve made some assumptions here (Blanco and Francoeurs value, but again I don’t think either are "busts") and i’m not drilling down into the specific projected warps of each player (it’s late) as much as you did, but they way I interpret this is clearly different than you. I will also add that projecting warp for prospects (even based on the most accurate data out there) is a lot like trying to guess the weather (even the professionals miss more often than not). This is the reason I focused on the ranges instead of specific WARPs. Clearly my hypothesis could swing either way dependent upon actual WARPs but one of my points is it doesn’t appear to be as big of a gap as you lead us to believe.

The bottom line is, isn’t failing to consider the value of Blanco and Francoeur a mistake? I would love your feedback here, help me understand where I’m wrong?

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 12:41 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That’s an oversight on my part – judging it in a vacuum. I’d argue with the valuation of players (ie, Francoeur is team controlled for three more seasons and Blanco for five) which changes your numbers a bit, but then again Francoeur’s high end production is more than 4 WARP a season over the next three years.

That’s the hard part of valuing players – its hard to establish a baseline. Losing Casey Kotchman next season would force us to truly employ a replacement level player if we didn’t go outside the organization because of our dearth of ready first baseman; however, losing Escobar would be less painful as we’d have Lillibridge on hand to play above replacement level (hopefully!).

Another difficulty in applying this to real life is that a result at one of the extremes is more likely than one in the center; ie, Heyward is more likely to accumulate 10 or 36 WARP in six seasons than 24, simply because there’s little incentive to keep a 4 win player around as a starter when he reaches his arbitration years and you can find similar players for cheaper than seven figures (Jeff Francoeur being the exception for non-preformance reasons).

I think the most important part of my post is the 2nd to last paragraph. There’s a good possibility the Braves could win out total value-wise (your post says as much), but much of Peavy’s value will be clustered in the next 2-3 years (afterwards his injury risk spikes and if he’s on the field his preformance will decline to the point where he may only be 2 wins better than the alternative*). I don’t believe the Braves are set-up to gain maximum benefit of that contribution because we’re an 80 win team in 2009. In 2010, we should be a few wins better by virtue of ripening young talent and the return of Hudson, but not by as much if we trade some of that young talent.

Basically, I make this deal if I’m sitting on a team that I think is currently set-up to win 85-86 games and Peavy would provide a 5-6 win boost. Maybe if I were the Twins, Cardinals, or Indians I’d pull the trigger (assuming I had the pieces).

*One thing I hate about replacement level is how it rarely is actually the realistic replacement level.

Excellent point though, it’s spurred an idea.

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 2:36 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

It's Not Either/Or...

We can trade for Peavy AND be players in free agency. In fact, acquiring Jake frees us up to be more effective in the FA Market because of his team-friendly contract and high caliber performance. We can’t afford (financially) to sign Sabathia, Lowe and Dunn/Burrell, but we could do it without losing much performance by replacing C.C. with Peavy. As for what it may take to acquire him, I think we could offer the following: Shafer/Hernandez, Freeman/Flowers, B. Jones, Lillibridge and a pitching prospect or two not named Hanson. In that case, we’d be using our depth to maintain the integrity of our farm system. Thoughts?

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 15, 2008 9:34 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Buster Olney is reporting...

that perhaps Kevin Towers would offer a discount if the team taking Peavy would also take Khalil Greene’s $6.5 million salary for 2009. This is hearsay, since Olney’s blog is subscription-only.

What if we were willing to swap Yunel Escobar for Khalil Greene? Greene has always hit well on the road, and he’s a superb defender. And Escobar’s inclusion (along with whatever “package discount” we get) would mean that Heyward and Hanson wouldn’t have to be on the table.

This is just a thought, but I think that could potentially make a Peavy acquisition that much more palatable from the Braves’ standpoint.

by tgthree on Oct 15, 2008 10:20 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

That's a tough one for me

Granted Khalil could very well have been killed by petco, but I’d hate to give up on Yunel’s excellent defense and better than average offensive production for Greene’s slightly better than average D and unknown offense. Obviously that’s an oversimplification (whahoo, big word). Not saying I wouldn’t do it, just tha’ it would be tough.

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 5:24 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Greene hasn’t hit well on the road, he’s managed not to be as bad as at Petco. He remains an OBP sink with solid power. He’s also only controlled for one season and is on the wrong side of 29. Giving up an asset like Escobar (5 seasons of control, great OBP, better defense) for Greene just to cheapen the price in prospects would be a monumental error. Escobar is a player you build around, Greene is a guy that you settle for at shortstop if your only other option is a guy with no skills.

Now, if we just agreed to take Greene’s salary on in addition to the deal, Greene could probably play a reasonable second base, but repeat the previous paragraph with Kelly Johnson’s name in place of Escobar’s.

Again, giving up five seasons of a better established player is not worth being able to include less prospects (unestablished talent).

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't trade for Peavy

1. Braves aren’t contending next year. Smoltz and Glavine are still question marks. No Hudson for next year and you can’t count on him coming back at the end of the season. The Cards tried that with Carpenter this year.

2. Peavy is an injury risk. Hardball Times. Chris O’Leary. If you knew you were trading for Peavy and he’d end up missing at least one full season, would you still do it?

by VictorW on Oct 15, 2008 11:26 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

We’re on the same page. I couldn’t agree more! It would be really dumb on Wren’s part to trade a butload of prospects for Peavy at this point in time. You can guarantee we will be in the middle to the bottom of the NL east for many years with Peavy and no young talent on the horizon. We’re not a big market and we don’t sign free agents so where are we going to get the rest of our team?? I’ve said this before, how would you guys like it when Peavy is on the DL for over a year because of TJ surgery? Can Peavy hit 30 homers and rack up 100 RBIs in a season too? Perhaps play left field when he’s not pitching???? Maybe we can clone him to fill the rest of the rotation!!! I hope my sarcasm isn’t too thick. Enough is enough with this Peavy talk. It’s a terrible deal for us right now. In addition, if Towers doesn’t HAVE to trade him this year, then why not wait until next year and see what we got.

by BravesFan on Oct 15, 2008 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

C'mon

It’s not even worth arguing with you except it’s fun. First off, how do you KNOW Peavy WILL be injured? Because you read it somewhere? No offense to Hardball times, I love their work and Carlos Gomez is absolutely fascinating to me, but they can’t tell us for sure that a pitcher will be injured. All they can say is that based on mechanics a certain pitcher is more prone to injury than others. For every pitcher that was said to be an injury risk who was actually injured I can most likely give you a pitcher also said to be an injury risk who was never injured.

To Victor’s point, he’s posing a hypothetical question. He doesn’t KNOW Peavy will be injured, although I won’t argue there’s not a risk. But again, what pitcher ISN’T at risk? It’s a ludicrous arguement for not making a trade for arguably one of the best pitchers in the league.

Last, how can you GUARANTEE we’ll be in the middle to bottom of the NL? Evidence please!

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well, these are the pythagorean standings for the NL East last season;
Phillies 93.1 68.9
Mets 89.4 72.6
Marlins 80.7 80.3
Braves 78.4 83.6
Nationals 61.7 99.3

We were a 78 win team with Tim Hudson and John Smoltz making 27 starts. We likely won’t be getting more than a handful of starts from the two of them in 2009, probably not very effective ones. The odds are in favor of Chipper Jones making fewer plate appearances as he ages. This has a very real effect on wins, not least because our backup third baseman are vastly inferior to him offensively and defensively. We are replacing 450 PAs of Mark Teixeira with Casey Kotchman. Optimistically that’s 18 runs scored less in 2009.

Now, will certain players produce more value? Sure, I can’t imagine that Francoeur will continue to absolutely suck, Johnson, Escobar, and Blanco will likely improve a bit, the young starters will improve a bit, but there comes a point where you subtract Hudson+Smoltz from the mix and replace them with our options in the rotation and you’re talking about allowing 20-30 more runs than we allowed in 2008. You’re talking about losing 18-20 runs by employing Kotchman rather than Teixeira. You’re talking about a few runs here and there from having less Chipper. Is that cancelled out by developing youth?

Even if it is, how much impact would free agents and Peavy bring? Peavy’s a six win player at the cost of three of our four best prospects, maybe more. Then adding a left fielder who might be a four win player. That’s now maybe an 88 win team. An 88 win team has won the NL East or Wild Card twice in the last ten seasons.

And sure, there’s a chance we’ll outpreform our pythagorean record rather than underpreform it. But who builds a baseball team that is going to need 3-5 games worth of luck to make the playoffs?

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 11:15 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You forgot the 2nd FA

Who, if valued at 2 to 4 wins, would put us over the top. Sorry, I just had to.

Actually, based on your logic, it appears you helped support my point. That would be 90 to 92 wins which puts us right up there with the tops in our division, not middle to bottom as proposed.

My problem with the original poster is the “definitiveness” of his statements. We’re now in the offseason and our team has 3 gaping holes and 3 to 4 question marks with nothing more than rumor or speculation as to who fills them. How can we possibly predict, or worse “guarantee”, what our record will be with that many question marks?

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 11:30 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

When have we ever been able to attract two top free agents to Atlanta? There’s a lot of teams out there looking for outfield bats and front-line starters. Does our offseason revolve around whether we can get two such players (because one really does us no good competition-wise).

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That first part was my sorry attempt at humor, more or less.

I agree, I can’t remember signing two top FA’s in our recent history. It will be difficult at best, damned near impossible at worst. BUT, I can still hold out hope.

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 11:55 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

scstrato…You’re joking right with your comments? I hope so. Either that or you just started watching baseball the past year or two. So what you’re saying is we should trade 4 or 5 of our best prospects for a pitcher who will basically replace Hudson in our staff next year(barring injury)? That’s completely asinine and I’m glad Wren is our GM and not you! Let’s not be short-sighted and look out for what’s best for the team in the long-run. The Braves can’t have that WIN NOW mentality like the NY teams because we don’t have the money to spend year in and year out on FAs.

The following is also an interesting piece on Peavy looking just at stats:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/on-the-block-one-ace/

by BravesFan on Oct 16, 2008 7:46 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

Why? Because that’s what it takes to get a staff Ace, which by the way is something the Braves need whether competing this year or not. How many of those 4 or 5 “best” prospects do you think is going to become regular major leaguers? Let me guess, you believe Heyward, Hanson and Schafer are automatic hall-of-famers. Please, as much as I like our prospects I am trying to be realistic. The fact is, History is against them. If we’re lucky 2 of them will become major league regulars. Realistically we’ll be lucky if 1 makes it to the show to stay. Now i’m no expert, but I do know enough to say their trade value is very good right now. What happens if/when they get the call and fail? They’re value could go straight down the toilet. So, yes, I say trade the question marks while they have value. And I think it’s arguable that most GM’s in MLB would agree with me on this point.

So, why is it asinine to give up 4 or 5 prospects who probably will never help the team for a staff Ace who will? Obviously these guys have very good upside, but so did Marte, Salty, Harrison, Devine, Francoeur, etc… (and those are just Braves can’t misses who, uh , missed).

Oh, and I read the article. Very nice piece, but it does nothing to prove Peavy will get Injured – nor does it prove that his skill set is declining. It merely questions why his stats weren’t up to par this year.

Last, Uh yes we do have the money to sign FA’s. In case you haven’t heard we’re sitting on a 40/45 mil pot o’gold which is more than good enough to sign 2 really good FA’s for multiple years. Now getting them to sign with us is a different question, but that wasn’t your point now was it.

by scstrato on Oct 16, 2008 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Your list of those who ‘missed’ is hilarious. The only player on it who we can reasonably shut the door on as a major leaguer is Andy Marte, who at 25 and with a full season’s worth of ML at-bats has proven himself not worthy of the big leagues.

The others though? Francoeur is a major leaguer right fielder who we’re judging after his likely career worst season. Francoeur will be 25 and still has average ML right fielder upside. At worst he’ll stick around for awhile accumulating value in non-full time roles.

Harrison has 80 ML innings and is 23. The chance that he carves out a ML career is still decent.

Devine has blossomed into a dominant relief ace.

The door’s certainly not closed on Saltalamacchia carving out a big league career either. He’s hit enough to play catcher and the jury’s still out on whether he’ll play catcher.

Of those guys, only Francoeur and Marte were ’can’t miss’. One missed, one turned into something less than expected. Now let’s draw conclusions from such a small sample.

by 17843 on Oct 16, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

SIGH

Pick out one little piece of my post and completely convolute the point. Nice. You appear to be much more intelligent than that.

Let’s get back on point. Excluding Devine, I’ll give you that one, has any of them reached their potential? No. Hell, has any of them produced at league average yet? Doesn’t look that way to me. Have they Missed? Depends on your definition. In my mind since they haven’t reach their potential, or at least haven’t become regulars, they have Missed. Does that mean they won’t/can’t reach their potential? No! And nothing in my post should have given you that indication. Is it a small sample size? Yes. But sample size is a sample size, whether large or small it is how they’ve performed so far.

My argument here is with Bravesfan. He posts these wildly ludicrous, and very definitive, statements without providing a shred of evidence to back his point. He didn’t respond to my questions about his posting, although I’ll admit my tone could’ve very well prevented that, until someone else tried to make his point for him. We had what I considered to be a good debate and although it didn’t change my opinion, it did at least get me to see there is a 2nd side to the situation. Then, and only then, does he come back and insults me while at the same time flinging more statements that aren’t even close to factual. Maybe I got a little too fired up about it and didn’t do a good job of making my case.

So, the point to my post was to try and show that prospects are nothing more than players with potential. There is NO guarantee, period, that they will become major leaguers. Even the ones that do usually take a lot longer than expected just to become average. You cannot argue that more prospects fail than succeed, including the “can’t miss” class. And because of that, based on the percentages, it is much smarter to move prospects for proven talent. Take the prospects names, and the homerism, out of the equation and I personally find it hard to argue against this fact.

by scstrato on Oct 17, 2008 12:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sorry for having the gall to correct your facts. You could have certainly come up with numerous more examples of guys who genuinely did miss rather than a collection of players who either reached their potential, are playing everyday in the major leaguers, or who have less than one years worth of playing time in the major leagues.

Dan Meyer, Jose Capellan, George Lombard, Bubba Nelson, Jake Stevens, etc.

And please don’t lecture me about ignoring your main point and going off on a tangent because you did the exact thing to BravesFan in your previous post. He said it wasn’t smart to trade for Peavy based on where we are as an organization. You then attacked him for not wanting to trade prospects.

I agree with you that prospects aren’t always something to hoard unless you’re undertaking a genuine rebuilding effort (Pirates, Royals, etc.). What I don’t agree with is your assertion that we should trade for Peavy and rely on attracting free agent to Atlanta in an attempt to compete next season. I think we’re far better set-up for contention in 2010 and should make moves that reflect that fact.

by 17843 on Oct 17, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And please don’t lecture me about ignoring your main point and going off on a tangent because you did the exact thing to BravesFan in your previous post. He said it wasn’t smart to trade for Peavy based on where we are as an organization. You then attacked him for not wanting to trade prospects.” Fair enough. I was wrong, sorry about that.

I think we’re far better set-up for contention in 2010 and should make moves that reflect that fact.”. I completely agree with that statement, though I don’t necessarily agree that we can’t compete in 2009, but why does it not make sense to sign FA’s this year and trade for Peavy this year if we’re just one year off? We loose nothing but money signing the FA’s (picks are protected) and quite frankly I don’t really care to save our “owners” money especially when the FA class has plenty of what we need. On top of that we would keep Peavy for several more years, though granted minus 1 year of service in your scenario, but we would still have them both/all through our competitive years.

by scstrato on Oct 17, 2008 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

scstrato is probably not even a Braves fan but a troll trying to start trouble. I’ve read your other posts on here and they’re ridiculous just like these. And why do you belong to the Rays blog as well??? Are you a Rays’ fan as well? . With that being said, if we can get Peavy for B. Jones, Lilli, Parr, Reyes, and other higher level prospects that don’t preject highly, than I’m all for it. But we all know that’s not going to happen. We will lose out TOP prospects to watch another, at best, mediocre season. I rather watch the young guys play. In this age of baseball with huge contracts and Boras, prospects are more valuable then ever whether you want to agree or not. Even the big market teams like the Yanks struggle when they fail to continue develop talent from within. We traded alot for Tex last year. Let’s cut our losses and get back to rebuilding from within. With that being said, I don’t mind signing a free agent or 2 this year to make us respectable. We do have the money to spend, but it must be spent wisely.

by BravesFan on Oct 17, 2008 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You sir, and I use that term lightly, are simply not worth it. But I do want to thank you for proving your lunacy!

by scstrato on Oct 17, 2008 7:49 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Excuse me? But I was the one who initially was attacked for agreeing with another poster. I did not start this argument and you have made no valid claims to support your argument. They were all rebutted.

“It’s not even worth arguing with you except it’s fun.”
-scstrato’s initial post to me after I agreed with another poster that we should not trade valuable prospects for Peavy. Using the word “argue” means you wanted an argument and that’s what you got.

by BravesFan on Oct 18, 2008 10:03 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Next year’s FA class has as many or more good outfielders and if we sign someone next year we have the benefit of evaluating them after another year of preformance. If we have two similar players who will both be 31 and have the same skillset at the age, only one is a free agent this winter and one is a free agent next winter, I’d rather sign the guy next winter because we’ll get marginal benefits from him.

Same thing with Peavy. If he’s not traded, he’ll be available cheaper next winter. If he is traded, the likelihood of another pitcher being available next winter is pretty high (Matt Cain, Nolasco, Oswalt, etc.).

In my perfect world, we’d sink the $20 million we’ll spend on free agents into over-slot draft bonuses and a ridiculous international signing period. That will restock the system even more AND we can spend the money the next season on FAs.

by 17843 on Oct 17, 2008 8:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And thanks for handling yourself with class unlike your debate opponent.

by 17843 on Oct 17, 2008 8:35 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

And I appreciate the comment, but it’s clear that ignoring him from the beginning was the “class” move. You live and learn, I guess.

by scstrato on Oct 17, 2008 11:29 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The only real argument I have with that is whether or not our draft pick(s) will be protected next year. It’s really hard to sign guys like Lowe or Ibanez (not that I condone signing the latter) when you know your draft pick is gone by doing so. Otherwise it’s does make some sense.

by scstrato on Oct 17, 2008 11:28 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree whole heartedly, but I think Cox may have a say in the trades and signings for an immediate fix to make us look repectable next year. I hope not, but that may be the case. If we do sign a free agent or two, we need to be careful how that player fits in to the long term plans of the team. For instance, I think Garland would be a better fit for us than Lowe because he’s younger and may be less expensive. Feel free to disagree with me, but I’d rather not “argue” as some apparently enjoy doing on here.

by BravesFan on Oct 18, 2008 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

The post above was directed at 17843’s last post.

by BravesFan on Oct 18, 2008 10:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who knew A squared plus B squared equals C squared could be applied to baseball?

by cbwilk on Oct 16, 2008 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dont see how it makes much sense in replacing a very good young cheap SS and replacin him with a bad expensive SS, we create a hole there to get a good pitcher and PLUS we would STILL have to trade good prospects also. I dont see how adding Escobar and then other good prospects will actually help us when we were tied for the 6th worst team in the majors.

Now i think a better option without given up NEARLY as much would be Andy Sonnastein or Edwin Jackson from the Rays. We should try to get one of them. I would prefer Sonnastein, he had a good year and he doesn’t hardly walk nobody. And i saw him pitch last night and he looked great. I wonder what it would take to get him or Jackson? Im sure they want to move one of them because i figure they would want Price to be in there rotation at the beginning of the year, but of course they dont have to trade either because they could move one to the bullpen but if they get the right deal they will trade one of them and maybe we can get Sonnastein. He could be a good number 3 for us.

braves#1

by rockybull on Oct 15, 2008 12:56 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Sonnanstine is not going to be available this winter. He was almost a half run better than his ERA this year based on bad LOB rates (same story in 2007 when he was actually decent despite a terrible ERA) and he’s just pitched well in two postseason games. All signs point to Edwin Jackson being available if either is.

I’d be in favor of adding Jackson if the price was right. Four seasons of control, probably a 4.50 ERA guy in the NL, upside beyond that if he masters his control, and closer possibilities if we want him there. I still think they make him their closer rather than deal on him low.

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Small list of tradable prospects

Brandon Jones, Chuck James, and Kala Kaaihue will probably not net us someone like Peavy, and that’s about my ceiling on prospects for trade. I wouldn’t even sell low on Anthony Lerew.

Yes, this is a season where a free agent or two makes sense. But I also agree that we are not likely contenders until 2010 or 2011, depending on when Heyward and Hanson are ready to play winning major league baseball.

So the goal should be young starting pitchers who will be better and stronger in a year or two, not guys who have already peaked and who have a good chance of turning into Mike Hampton (i.e. expensive and injured) by a yeara from now.

JimK
who warned against signing Glavine last year.

by JimK on Oct 15, 2008 1:52 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Out of curiousity

How is this not a contending team?

CF – Blanco / Anderson
SS – Escobar
3B – Chipper / C – McCann (w. Chipper on DL)
LF – Burrell / Dunn
C – McCann / 3B – Infante/Prado (w. Chipper on DL)
RF – Francoeur
2B – Johnson
1B – Kotchman

SP – Lowe
SP – Peavy / other trade candidate
SP – Jurrjens
SP – Campillo / Morton
SP – Morton / James / Reyes / Hampton (longshot)

Long – Carlyle
Long – Bennett
7th – Gonzo
8th – Soriano
9th – Smoltz (hopefully)

Granted there’s a ton of negotiating to be done in the offseason but this isn’t out of the realm of possibility. If it does come to pass this is easily a 90/95 win team barring the freakish injury history we endured this year.

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Picking Some Nits.

Francouer would bat 8th with Kelly and Kotchman moving up to complete that move. Peavy would be the ace of that rotation and Campillo would have that 4th slot locked up. Stockman, Boyer and/or a lefty (why not Ohman) would fill out that bullpen, with perhaps one of the longmen dropping to AAA. Plus, Moylan comes back sooner rather than later.

Well, after all that, I agree with the fundamental question: how is that not competative? The eight playoff teams won about 93 games on average, with 90 being good enough to sneak in regardless of your division. I wouldn’t say we’d be a lock for that, but I think we’d have a legit shot at it. Maybe I’m crazy, but it’s not like trading for Peavy, signing Lowe and Burrell/Dunn are moves limited to 2009.

Here we go again: http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/

by ejruiz on Oct 15, 2008 8:38 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

That's not nit picky

I’m right there with you, only I fear Bobby may have a different opinion (on Francoeur). Knowing him, he’s going to want a righty behind McCann for protection.

I figured Stockman would be used more for depth, but Boyer I completely forgot about. A healthy Moylan/Gonzo/Sori 7th, 8th and 9th would be pretty damned unhittable.

by scstrato on Oct 15, 2008 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most teams become contending teams when you add 28 runs of production to left field, a pitcher who’s going to throw 200 IP at a 3.50-4.00 ERA, and magically bring back an injured pitcher to health. When was the last time the Braves attracted a single marquee free agent much less two?

This ignores that the bullpen is an absolute mess – seriously, we have what, Boyer, Bennett, Carlyle, and Gonzalez coming back. Soriano will hopefully be healthy. Maybe Moylan in August. Then a lot of filler types that will rack up 5.50 ERAs.

Again, way too many ifs in that scenario to make an argument in favor of trading a lot of talent for Peavy.

by 17843 on Oct 15, 2008 11:44 PM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Escobar included in deal

If Yunnel is included in a deal for Peavy, and we agree to absorb Khalil Greene’s salary in the deal, what other prospects would we have to give up.

If Escobar were still in the Minors, he would be our top hitting prospect. He is also one of the best defensive shortstops in the league with a lot of room to grow offensively. His approach at the plate is solid, he just needs to stay healthy.

Me thinks that this is the deal that Atlanta will make for Peavy. Include Escobar and either Gorkys or Jordan Schafer plus a pitching prospect or two.

by dmack on Oct 16, 2008 3:57 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Cards Fan Here

Good Discussion here, We are having the same one over at www.vivaelbirdos.com

Most of us are reaching the same conclusion. It is just not wise to give up 3 quality prospects for a pitcher. We are on the fringe team with 86 wins last year so Peavy probably would put us over next year but at what cost for future seasons. I only really see this coming down to the Braves and the Cardinals this off season.

by FlimtotheFlam on Oct 18, 2008 1:53 PM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Atlanta Braves.
Start posting about the Braves »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Dsc01731_small
Brian McCann Charity Softball Game; Andruw Jones wants his job back
Small
Early November Fresh Rosterbation

Recent FanPosts

Small
Bullpen
Small
Bring back my boy AJ
Small
Freddie Freeman
Small
Minor League Free Agents
Dave_avatar_beach_small
Photos of Gwinnett Braves Infielders from 2009 - Inaugural Season
Small
Could Miguel Cabrera be had?
Small
Arizona Fall League Pics
Small
We're Not Signing An Outfielder
527368058_l_small
Misc 2007-2009 Spring Pictures

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Gondeee_small gondeee

Authors

My_hair_is_a_bird-257x300_small yondaime4

Dsc01731_small royhobbs

Tc_small cbwilk