The Braves would have paid Smoltz incrementally based on his health up to a maximum of $5 million...

The Braves would have paid Smoltz incrementally based on his health up to a maximum of $5 million if he remained on the major league roster for 60 days, and the guarantee was for no more than $3 million. The offer also included another $5 million in performance bonuses and $2 million in additional incentives. So Smoltz could have earned up to $12 million by staying healthy and pitching extremely well. [...]

The Braves held a $12 million vesting option on Smoltz for ‘09, but because Smoltz did not pitch 200 innings last season, it did not vest.

The details of the Braves offer to Smoltz
I'm just saying, it sounds reasonable to me, but even then, if you're willing to go to a possible $12 million, why not go ahead and guarantee at least $5 million. Who knows, maybe it was the achievability of the incentives and not the base salary. The more I think about this the more I'm falling on the Braves side of the argument. And don't give me that line about "respect." Three million for a guy who won't pitch until May or June and is coming off his fourth surgery is pretty generous.

10 months ago gondeee 36 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed, but.....

$5 million is more generous. It’s also John Smoltz.

by Andy Braves Fan on Jan 8, 2009 10:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i think wren was apprehensive about giving smoltz anymore money after the glavine debacle last year, coupled with smoltz being out until may-june.

he tried doing the sentimental crap last year, and it got us nowhere, so we’re trying things a little differently now.

BIG JOE SUCK ONE

by bigjoe on Jan 8, 2009 10:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

wow, that was actually a rational sounding statement… did someone hack your account?

by gondeee on Jan 8, 2009 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i wanna see if i can get flamebaited when i’m acting logically

BIG JOE SUCK ONE

by bigjoe on Jan 8, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+ Forever

How about signing Garland now?

(joking)

by Rafael Belliard's SLG % on Jan 8, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i will hadoken you in the face

BIG JOE SUCK ONE

by bigjoe on Jan 8, 2009 11:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by Mike de La Hoz on Jan 8, 2009 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+2

by Mike de La Hoz on Jan 8, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

We were burned so much by Hampton’s contract, and by Smoltz and Glavine last year, I really can’t blame Atlanta for not wanting to go over what they offered.

-1000 for being a dick.

by Rhyno18 on Jan 8, 2009 11:00 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

The more I read about it

The more I think Smotlz didn’t care about how much the Braves would offer. He wants to win, period. Boston offered more only because they thought Smoltz would stay in Atlanta if they didn’t, no knowing (because Smoltz didn’t tell them) that money was not the object, but winning was. I think his anger isn’t so much at Atlanta for not offering more, but for not offering him a winning team to be on. It’s a guy torn between his home and his need to win.

Can you imagine how tough that must be?

Take care of the little things, and the big things will take care of themselves.

by SunDolphin on Jan 8, 2009 11:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think once everyone has a chance to get past the shock, more people will come to this conclusion. There’s already a good handful of us that believe Smoltz was gone regardless of how much Wren offered.

by Bobby Cocks on Jan 8, 2009 11:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

It just happens to be real convenient that the Braves did lowball Smoltz in the guaranteed/pay-to-not-pitch department that he had a very justified reason to throw the blame back at Atlanta, and generate some blinding sympathy. Imagine the outcry if there was a bidding war, and Smoltz picked Boston over Atlanta?

When October rolls around, there’s a fair chance you’ll see John Smoltz on the mound in Fenway Park, FOX cameras zoomed up to his nostrils, more people will understand why he signed with the Red Sox.

No wonder nobody likes you, Tuttle... everything's a (Pujols) damn debate.

by royhobbs on Jan 9, 2009 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think alot of the anger will calm after the press conference next week, as soon as fans see Smoltz in the uniform, and he slips us and shows a little too much love for the Sox, and says something along the lines of “this gives me the best chance to win” or something to that nature.

by 10-4 on Jan 9, 2009 9:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Even if John has a risk of not pitching an inning next season...

…I still say John is the best $5M gamble you can find in the whole market…and Wren is the same guy who was so willing to take Peavy’s contract, committed $80M on Burnett and $30M on Furcal. John is only an one year invesmtment. I don’t know how Wren measures risks, but Wren’s logic makes no sense to me.

by kstchiu on Jan 9, 2009 3:20 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

...

…and now Wren is going after a 36 years old pitcher who is looking for a four-year commitment…the guy is taking risks left and right…and he is not taking risk on the pitcher the organization knows the best.

by kstchiu on Jan 9, 2009 3:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Uh

There is a significant difference in taking a risk on a 40+ year old pitcher who just had what most consider career ending surgery and a 35 year old pitcher who has averaged almost 200 innings every year he’s been a starter and has basically never been injured.

It’s not hard to figure out if you do a little research.

"Debated ya right not one person agreed with me" by ATLsportsfrk on Dec 27, 2008 6:31 PM EST

by scstrato on Jan 9, 2009 9:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

$5.5M for one season vs $40+M for three + seasons?

You look at the size of the commitment and you tell me which one is easier to take.

by kstchiu on Jan 9, 2009 9:56 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

That's easy

I’d pay the 40 mil for a pitcher who will throw me 600 innings over those three years over the 5.5 mil for the pitcher who may not pitch more than 30 innings this year.

Also, there’s a little thing called a ‘reply’ button below the posts.

"Debated ya right not one person agreed with me" by ATLsportsfrk on Dec 27, 2008 6:31 PM EST

by scstrato on Jan 9, 2009 10:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You people...

…the chance of Lowe gets hurt before he turns 40 is just as good as Smoltz not throwing a single pitch. The way you look at risk is amazing.

by kstchiu on Jan 9, 2009 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

what was your tipoff, lowe’s extensive injury history?

BIG JOE SUCK ONE

by bigjoe on Jan 9, 2009 9:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What do you mean, you people?

by cbwilk on Jan 9, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

WHAT DO YOU MEAN, YOU PEOPLE?

Booty Sweat.

best defensive shortstop in baseball hahahahahahahahahah (omar visquel)

by mvandonsel on Jan 10, 2009 2:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am just saying...

…don’t get too excited about Lowe. Check out Lowe’s home/road splits in the last three years. Besides, when do we start getting so comfortable with offering a three-year contract to a 35 (to be 36 in June) years old pitcher?

by kstchiu on Jan 10, 2009 2:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You haven’t seen Tropic Thunder have you?

best defensive shortstop in baseball hahahahahahahahahah (omar visquel)

by mvandonsel on Jan 10, 2009 3:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I am curious

How you can justify Lowe having similar risk to Smoltzy when the former has had NO significant injuries in his career and latter has had four major surgeries on his arm and his shoulder is currently hanging on by 5 anchor points?

For the record, I’m not justifying giving Lowe a three year deal if there were other options available. My point is he is the last remaining, attractive free agent option and the market appears to be dictating that type of contract.

"Debated ya right not one person agreed with me" by ATLsportsfrk on Dec 27, 2008 6:31 PM EST

by scstrato on Jan 10, 2009 12:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The risk is similar because...

…Smoltzie contract is only one year while Lowe’s will be three years. Being healthy in the past has little bearing to the future, and you are talking about a contract which will cover a pitcher who will be 36, 37, and 38 years old. Considering Lowe’s home/split, age, and everything else, I think 3/40 is reasonable. Anything more than that will be too much.

by kstchiu on Jan 11, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Being healthy in the past has little bearing to the future

Are you kidding me? If you’re working with this kind of logic there’s no way to have a reasonable discussion.

by cbwilk on Jan 11, 2009 11:37 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seriously...

…when does everybody start getting so comfortable in handing a three-year contract to a 36 years old pitcher?

by kstchiu on Jan 11, 2009 8:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I wasn’t agreeing with you. Being healthy in the past has absolute bearing toward the future. Lowe hasn’t been hurt, he’s shown no signs of being hurt. Giving him a three year contract would be a fine move.

by cbwilk on Jan 12, 2009 1:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know...

…you are not agreeing with me. But hey, Huddy never had arm trouble before last year, and he pitched two consecutive seasons of 200+ innings in 06 and 07, and he is no where near 35 years old. I am not saying we should not sign Lowe, I am just saying we should all recognize that there are significant risk in offering a three-year contract to a 35 years old pitcher.

by kstchiu on Jan 12, 2009 9:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

His age is obviously a concern, but who would you rather us go after?

I guess I should be one to talk.
There's nights that I can't even walk.
There's days I couldn't give a fuck.
And in between is where I'm stuck.

by Smoltz's Beard on Jan 12, 2009 1:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

...and then...

…there is Tommy boy. Arm injury will eventually happen to any pitcher. It’s just a matter of time.

by kstchiu on Jan 12, 2009 9:31 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re right there’s a risk, but there are plenty of guys who are healthy into their 30s. If you’re bringing up Hudson then signing any pitcher of any age is a huge risk because any of them, regardless of their history.
And Tom Glavine made it to 41 before he had any kind of significant injuries in his career, well after most guys have retired.

by cbwilk on Jan 12, 2009 11:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I guess my point...

…has always been that I don’t understand why Wren would refuse to commit $5M for Smoltzie. I guess Wren’s plan had been trying to low-ball Smoltzie all along. It doesn’t matter now.

by kstchiu on Jan 12, 2009 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs