A Bad Week for Atlanta Braves Fan Confidence
by gondeee on Dec 28, 2009 9:59 AM EST
Email
PrintWhile the Atlanta Braves front office is moving to try and improve the club through trades and free agent signings, the fans of the team don't seem to be real happy with the moves. The Atlanta Braves Fan Confidence, measured every two weeks in the off-season, plummeted this week from 72% to 65%. This marks the third straight fortnight of decline for this measurement.
Since we at Talking Chop have only been running this poll since the beginning of last season, we don't have another off-season to compare these measurement to. One generally thinks of Braves fans as fairly optimistic, but the results of this poll seem to fly in the face of that optimism.
One factor could be the record voting for the poll this week. There were 1966 votes, nearly double the next highest weekly total. Could it be that the site just had an influx of new and disgruntled fans? Perhaps the idea of the poll was not totally clear to these new folks. While it focuses on the major league team, it also takes into account the strength of the minor league system, and that strength was certainly boosted by the acquisition of Arodys Vizcaino, but perhaps not enough to off-set the loss of Javier Vazquez.
It will be interesting to see if the team can make any more significant moves and what impact those moves will have on the Fan Confidence. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised. After all, look at how many ups and downs the season had. Why should our off-season be any different.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Yankee trolls could also have affected the results.
Overheard in press box, from local reporter: 'If this Moore kid was any good, they'd be up 31-0 right now.'
--Darin Gantt, on CAR@NE
by MichaelProcton on Dec 28, 2009 10:25 AM EST reply actions
it was due to the Javier Vazquez salary dump.
and insofar as the vast majority of fans are primarily concerned about the major league team’s potential for a WS appearance in the upcoming season, considerations like managing payroll, adding organizational depth or even picking up (yet another) future ace pale in comparison to voluntarily giving up our best pitcher from last season.
this
Yeah basically plus signing Glaus makes it clear the Braves are going to upgrade the offense on the cheap for the second consecutive season and will heavily depend on a bounce-back season by Chipper Jones to score enough runs to make the playoffs.
You make that sound like it's a hugely unlikely scenario.
Is there anything other than last season’s small overall sample that should lead us to believe Chip is done as an above-average hitter (if not significantly more than?) Hell, with some better regular protection in the lineup in the form of Glaus, he could bounce right back up close to his ’08 numbers.
Overheard in press box, from local reporter: 'If this Moore kid was any good, they'd be up 31-0 right now.'
--Darin Gantt, on CAR@NE
by MichaelProcton on Dec 28, 2009 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Chipper's age, relentless injuries, and that production last year...
he is not going to stay hitting like he did forever. At some point, the injuries and age will take it’s toll, and that point may have been last year.
by Mr. Sanchez on Dec 28, 2009 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
I’m as hopeful as anybody that Chipper will once again hit .320+ with 25 homers in 2010. But if he doesn’t and Heyward isn’t ready or Glaus isn’t the same hitter he used to be, then what? Basically as of now Wren is gambling on everything going right with the offense. If it doesn’t, another big prospects for a proven bat deal will be needed in June or July.
Chipper still had an OBP just south of .400 last season. If that is Chipper being “done”, count me as all for him staying in the lineup!
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Dec 28, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions
I know it was a salary dump, but the Braves traded the ace of the staff for a pitching prospect. I hope the guy pans out, but seriously, how many do? That just seemed like a glaring issue.
We didn’t need to dump Vazquez’s contract in order to sign Glaus.
This team is relying on a lot of “if’s” right now. With Saito and Wagner, will age catch up to them? Will Lowe bounce back? Will Glaus bounce back from surgery and not playing. Might as well sign Nomar Garicaparra while Wren is at it.
All I’m saying is that Wren really needs to make at least one more move and get a guy that doesn’t have some serious question marks behind him.
I still voted a 7, as I’ve been between a 7 and an 8 for almost the entire year. I almost voted lower, but I still think Wren will make at least one more move. I’ll wait and see, and revise my vote once spring training starts.
"We didn’t need to dump Vazquez’s contract in order to sign Glaus."
We did, however, need to dump Vazquez’ contract to not have a huge roster jam in both salary and players at SP.
Overheard in press box, from local reporter: 'If this Moore kid was any good, they'd be up 31-0 right now.'
--Darin Gantt, on CAR@NE
by MichaelProcton on Dec 28, 2009 11:10 AM EST up reply actions
How do you know we didn't need to dump Vazquez's salary...
…in order to sign Glaus? While Glaus’s base salary is reportedly $2 million, the contract is reportedly heavily incentive based, and if I had to guess, it will come to $7 million or so if he plays the entire season. I am pretty certain we didn’t have $7 million sitting around before the Vazquez trade based upon salary commitments already made.
As for doing something that doesn’t have serious question marks behind it, which player that we can afford meets that description? I don’t know of any. Please elaborate.
I don’t know of anyone, which is why I believe it’ll have to be through another trade. I’m not about to get into rosterbating as there is a thread for that. I’m simply explaining why I chose a 7 and that I will re-evaluate come spring training as everything unfolds.
Moving Lowe would have been difficult, but not impossible. Lowe should have been moved, not Vazquez.
You can guess all you want on Glaus’s “potential” salary, and even it was a max deal of $7mil…you are talking about a guy that would have to hit all the necessary marks to even hit that mark. So no, Vazquez salary dump was not needed to sign Glaus. However, a starting pitcher had to go and the Braves didn’t want to eat any part of Lowe’s contract; Vazquez was more movable based off his career year. I understand why the Braves did it, but it doesn’t make me any happier.
The report is that...
…the best offer the Braves got for Lowe involved eating about half of the $45 million, so I am not sure where you got the part about us not wanting to eat any of it. True, the Braves could have signed Glaus with incentives that we don’t budget for, but that would be assuming the worst and put us in a payroll position above what is allowed if he reached them. Somehow, I don’t think Liberty would have been amused.
For what it is worth, I voted 7 as well. I just don’t buy the reasons behind your vote. They seemed to be based on what you think we should have been able to do even if there is no indication that we could have actually done it.
Where did you come across that information about the Lowe offer? I’m not doubting you at all, but I’m very interested in knowing (as much as we can know) if we could have dumped all of Lowe’s contract as long as we got nothing in return. If we could have, then I think that’s a big issue surrounding the Vazquez trade, although I can see where many would have chosen to make the trade anyway given the return.
I read it in several places, MLBTR and ESPN just to name a couple.
"My team of nine guys who hit like Albert Pujols and never ever bunt just beat your team with one Shane Victorino 472 to 3."
by justincredubil02 on Dec 28, 2009 1:22 PM EST up reply actions
Moving Lowe would have been difficult, but not impossible
There is absolutely no way that you could know whether moving Lowe would have been possible. Especially not in the short term so as to create payroll space and thus allow one or more FA signings or additional trades to bolster the offense to go forward.
I believe trading a sp was inevitable..
I don’t think their will be a drop off in our starting pitching as I fully expect lowe to find a groove..we will also have huddy back..jj and hanson.. We have a solid 1-4.. I would also expect kk to be getting used to everything and settling in.. To me this year looks ALOT brighter than last year. The vazquez trade will pay off for us I’m sure.
by SidKotchman on Dec 28, 2009 11:23 AM EST via mobile reply actions
Of course it was.
The Braves aren’t a team that can just eat salary like the Yankees. But trading Vazquez was a huge hit for us especially after his great season last year. How many times did he end a two or three game lossing streak for us?
Probably about as many times as he pitched in the last game of one.
That “stopper” business is a little overrated. A well-thrown game is a well-thrown game.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Dec 28, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
Doesn't matter who we got for Vazquez
It would have been a loss for us. Any minor league player could become a bust. Vazquez is a top of the rotation starter for us. You can’t just say a minor league pitcher with lots of POTENTIAL offsets that.
He had a career year..dont think he will repeat, We have a surplus of
Good arms… And more to come
by SidKotchman on Dec 28, 2009 11:28 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think Vazquez will...
stink in NY. He sucked there in 2004. But I also think Vazquez would have done well again in Atlanta. There are players who just do well in certain cities for a variety of reasons.
I agree with you that he had his highest trade value of his career but I also think right now our team/organization is a bit worse now than last week. Maybe in five years the players we got will be doing well for us. But for right now these minor leaguers are just “what ifs” and “might bes”.
You do realize our rotation is still
Hudson, lowe, Jair, hanson, kk..if our offense produces.. Which with the moves were making and will make and the possibility of adding heyward to the mix in the outfield..There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to take ALOT of series against teams this year. I just can’t visualize how trading vaz a guy who had a career year and will more than likely not repeat hurts this team especially when you are gaining offensive potential with the freed up $ and you are also getting your #1 starter back in Hudson anyhow??
by SidKotchman on Dec 28, 2009 11:45 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
no,
what the vaz trade did, was make us a better organization from top to bottom, it gave us depth and options..vizcaino is a top notch prospect that many teams would kill for…and now with vizcaino and teheran, we could very easily package one of these in a deal that could bring us a big named player in june or july if that is indeed what we find out we need during the first couple of months of the season…who knows, by july the padres could be out of contention and wanting to dump agonz for some prospects..and prospects like vizcaino are the first ones they’re gonna be asking for…
"Im a fullonrapist, I do men, women, autistic kids, children, the elderly." -Charlie Kelly
The Padres will be out of contention by July.
And A.Gonzalez will be shopped if he isn’t traded before the season starts. Whether we are willing to make a reasonable offer will depend on how well Glaus is doing, but certainly some teams will be interested. Since he’ll have a year and a half left on a very reasonable contract, the Padres will demand a lot, probably a package similar to the one we gave up for Teixeira. Whether it is worth giving up that much is an open question.
There will be numerous sellers in July
and the Braves should be very well positioned to make a deal, if it makes sense.
The financial piece is the unknown. The presumption is we will stay approximately at the 2009 level, but it is truly an unknown.
i think a package of freeman, vizcaino/teheran, and medlen might get it done…but i wanna be 100% sure we can resign him
"Im a fullonrapist, I do men, women, autistic kids, children, the elderly." -Charlie Kelly
If that is all it would take...
…he would be a Brave already, regardless of whether he would sign an extention. Hell, he’d actually be a Red Sock because they would beat that offer. They want way more than that.
Vazquez WAS a top of the rotation starter.
He could just as easily “bust” next year by returning to his career norms.
Advance apologies if the contents of this sports-based post offended you. I'm just aiming to educate the masses. My law professor says they're asses.
by MichaelProcton on Dec 28, 2009 1:01 PM EST up reply actions
I think the confidence fell sharply because of shortsightedness caused by our societies need for instant gratification. A majority of voters cannot understand that this is a organization in transition. One with limited payroll resources demanding smarter, longer term investments. Dealing Vazquez, with no certainty of retaining his services following this year, for two high upside prospects and a serviceable outfielder doesn’t seem like a move that will payoff in the near future.
Now everyone thinks there is considerable money left to sign Matt Holliday or Jason Bay to long term deals for high annual salaries. These are the kind of crippling contracts that a team in the mid-market size bracket simply cannot make.
Signing Glaus or Nady or DeRosa all would have been seen as a waste of the payroll resources freed up by moving Vazquez. So therefore confidence declined.
For those who can look at this franchise and see that it is being setup for a chance at success in the near future and very strong chance in the mid to long term future will have more confidence and vote accordingly.
I don’t believe that was why confidence dipped. You have fans that were emotionally tied to Vazquez as he was down right awesome this past year and was a blast to watch. Fans felt Lowe should have been moved, not Vazquez.
I think we can all agree that Vazquez coming off a stellar season was just easier to move.
Vazquez thrived in the NL, but doesn’t do as well in the AL. I think he’ll have a similar year as what he did when he was previously with the Yanks.
oh
So the people bashing the trade are doing it for sentimental reasons? That I can understand, but the guy was only in Atlanta for a year. It almost seems like a the same reaction that we experienced when Flowers was traded last year for Vazquez. People had built an emotional connection to Flowers and didn’t want him traded for an underachiever like Vazquez. Its funny what a difference a year makes.
I am so sick of the giant strawman of “everyone who doesn’t love the trade thinks we are the Yankees/should have signed Holliday or Bay/thinks we should have gotten Pujols in return/doesn’t understand the longterm value of prospects.” There are plenty of reasons to like the trade, but there are valid reasons to question it that deserve better responses than snark.
I’ve personally shifted from not liking the trade to slightly favoring it, largely because a good case has been made by many over time. The shift isn’t because I suddenly started valuing organizational depth or understanding payroll, it really depends on valuing the year I would have expected Vazquez to have compared to how expect Hudson to perform or how ok I expect Lowe to be throughout the long rest of his deal.
I still find myself acting more like a critic of the trade than a defender because of all the posts suggesting that there is no way in hell than that it could have been the wrong choice, or that Vazquez will have the year he would have had last year, or acting like Vizcaino is such a sure thing that it would have been worth it anyway. If we knew for an absolute fact that Vazquez would have the year he did last year, I would say that the trade was a mistake, because having a top pitcher like that is just so valuable. It so happens we don’t know that for sure, either way, so I can support getting the value that we did for Javy’s last year given our surplus at the position.
by Sir Stealth on Dec 28, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I am surprised
That more people do not see career statistics and think that Vazquez regresses to his mean, which is a .500 pitcher with a 4+ career ERA. Freeing up his salary to boost the offense was a good move. I also believe that as long as pitchers are regressing to their mean, this sets up Lowe to have a much better year. I am surprised that so many people here are still down on this move.
Wren was able to cut salary, POTENTIALLY fill a gap in the OF, build up the farm system, and free up money to sign/ trade for higher potential Free Agents. This was a “win” move by the organization in just about all facets. If Vazquez has another “career” year and/ or Lowe has another “bust” year and it costs the Braves at the least a playoff spot, not only will I be very surprised but I will gladly admit Wren made a bad move; hindsight being 20/20 of course.
I voted higher in the confidence poll this time – I see the Braves set up for a strong 2010 but even stronger 2011 and on. Go Braves!
by CharlotteChop18 on Dec 28, 2009 1:31 PM EST reply actions
This is really what it comes down to. If we knew for a fact that Vazquez would have the year he did last year, then I think that the trade would have been a mistake. Having a top pitcher like that is very valuable to a team.
I was an early critic of the trade because when we trade for Vazquez I believed, like many, that Atlanta would be an ideal situation for Javy to pitch in and that he would see a lot of improvement in his results. So, it didn’t seem like a fluke to me. That being said, I’ve admitted to myself that the validity and consistency of that level of pitching is uncertain enough that extending Hudson/not dumping Lowe and his albatross contract (to the extent that even would have been possible) + getting the return we got for Vazquez is valuable enough to outweigh the chance that Vazquez would have pitched like that again this year.
However, this does not mean that it’s ridiculous to assume he could have repeated the year he had last year. And if he would have had that year, that’s a real tough loss for our team, organizational depth or not.
I think his year in 2010 in Atlanta...
…would have been in between last year and his career norms. Most of his career norms were established in extreme hitters’ parks, so a downward adjustment is necessary. On the other hand, his season in 2009 was much better than his career norms in K/BB among other stats that is not likely repeatable given that he is not a youngster who just figured it out—-he was a vet who just had a great year. So I think we did give up something valuable as I think he would have had a good (but not as good as 2009) season in 2010. On the other hand, we had to trade one of the starters, and Lowe wasn’t moving quickly apparently, so we did the best we could. It wasn’t a bad return for him, especially compared to the return Philly got for Cliff Lee, so I am not too unhappy. On the other hand, I am not overly thrilled either. I think I voted “meh” in the poll about the trade, and that is still how I feel. Probably necessary, but not exactly fun.
Yeah, I’m pretty much cool with it at this point. The thing that makes it hard to get enthusiastic is that, despite his greater career consistency, Hudson probably does not have the upside this year that Javy would have (repeating last year). Being older and coming off surgery, he may have a bigger downside as well. Still, the possibility that Javy would regress off of such outstanding year is obvious, and the haul we got for him plus being able to extend Huddy at a reasonable price probably makes up for the gap, so it works.
My confidence is high:
1. We got a top-5 organizational prospect
2. We signed a potential 30 home run slugger to a cheap $2mil contract
3. We freed up some salary, which will help us keep our young players (Hanson, Jurrjens, Escobar, etc..) when they hit arbitration in the coming years
4. All of our “risky” deals are one-year deals, and we have minor-league options to take over in case something happens
5. No long term, high salary contracts… (I think Wren has learned his mistake from the Lowe deal)
6. Derek Lowe is probably now motivated more than ever to pitch lights-out this year and prove to the Braves that he is capable of pitching to the salary he is getting paid.
7. There are Melky trade rumors floating around (we don’t need another average outfielder)
8. We have the number 1 offensive prospect in baseball waiting in the wings.
So I don’t see any reason to vote other than sentimental ties to Vazquez (which should not affect the score because our team is NOT worse without him). Feel free to disagree
I very much disagree with the assertion that our team is better without Vazquez pitching. We’re still running a net loss from the trade skill-wise (espeically for next year), but we’ll see how that $8MM gets reapplied.
by soup du jour on Dec 29, 2009 1:17 AM EST up reply actions
I don’t think we’re better without him, I never said that. I just think we’re not worse than we were last year because he’s gone.
He pitched great, no question about it, but he also got very little run support. The same goes for Kawakami and Jurrjens. Lowe, on the other hand, got plenty of run support – enough to win him 15 games when he had an average/below-average year. Therefore, by increasing the offensive output while replacing his rotation spot with a good pitcher (Kawakami), things should start to even out. So by sacrificing an ace to upgrade our offense and replacing the ace with a good pitcher, our offense should balance things out.
I actually came up a notch in the poll
I went up from 5 to 6 mainly because of Glaus and I think he will be at his normal production this next season. Not overfond of the Vazquez trade but if we couldn’t trade Lowe I don’t really see anything better we could have done and I like Cabrera’s chances of improving a lot better than Frenchy’s. He’s a late in the game clutch hitter and that’s an improvement over Frenchy no matter how you look at it. I bet he doesn’t go up there with a crazy look in his eye and hit the 1st pitch (a ball) into a double play anyway.
Senator, we have another old saying,"Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." Fletcher
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
