Nice move...

by calbers on Jan 5, 2010 12:15 PM EST

Too bad it is not for the Braves. The Indians just picked up Austin Kearns on a minor league deal. Do I want Austin Kearns as my starting RF...no. Would I like to have him in spring training to see if he can get his swing back...yes. The worst case scenario for the Indians is that they have an extra OF bat in the spring that can play excellent corner OF defense...and can take a walk to get on base (He only hit .195 and his OBP was .336 in'09. The predictions are for him to hit .250 with an OBP of about .350 next year) and could...COULD...end up being a steal if he can approach his old self.

The cost...some spring training ABs. We have a lot of people that are excited about the idea of some of the non-roster invites for Spring Training which is fine. However, if Austin Kearns could be had on a minor league contract then why werent we going after him? He makes a lot more sense to me then Mitch Jones....Kearns plays good OF defense...has done it previously in the majors...and I think he is still younger then Jones at 29. Not that each signing is mutually exclusive ...and that signing Jones (I think it was Mitch) to a minor league deal is a bad thing..but I don't want to be entering into the 2nd week of June with our backup OFer being a career minor league guy at 31 if there are other options to consider in addition.

I realize that Austin Kearns suddenly awakening to become the hitter he was 4 years ago is unlikely. However, if you have confidence in your staff..and their ability to help a player get back on track...wouldn't you want to take a chance on him if you are the Braves? If you are Kearns...wouldn't the Braves be a team you would be interested in looking at? They are a team that could compete...but has blatant openings in their OF right now...that could afford you the opportunity to get signifigant playing time if you can turn things around. If the Braves are as cash strapped as it seems these days...then the front office needs to be more aggressive about finding these low risk-high reward scenarios. I applaud the Glaus signing for this reason...but to see a NO RISK...high reward player fall off the board like Kearns on a minor league deal frustrates me....especially if we end up signing $(%*&$ Nady for 6 million a year!

I am reading too much upside into Kearns? Or would there be a negative I was missing?

This FanPost does not express the views or opinions of Talking Chop.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

You could make this argument for a whole bunch of bad baseball players… Andruw Jones being one of them. You could theoretically sign whole teams of them each off season and rehab enough of them to have a decent team, but who wants to go to that kind of trouble? Kearns, like Andruw before him, is probably what you are seeing, not what you have seen.

He has never, ever lived up to his hype, and, in my opinion, not worth wasting your time on if you are one of the Braves coaches. That time would be better spent with higher upside talent, like Schafer or a guy like Mitch Jones, who has never really been given a chance.

by Kelly's Big Johnson on Jan 5, 2010 12:37 PM EST reply actions

Kearns probably wouldn't have signed with us.

We have McLouth, Diaz, Melky, Heyward, Schafer, and Infante (who plays OF some) already on the roster. His odds of even being the fifth OF were slim. In Cleveland, there is a chance at playing time. Given that he was signing a minor league deal, he probably had plenty of options and took the one with the best chance at getting major league at bats.

by cavebird on Jan 5, 2010 1:15 PM EST reply actions

I think what you’re missing is MLB teams have professional scouts and other evaluators constantly searching for and really evaluating players and making measured decisions about who has worthwhile upside potential.

Sideways criticisms of the Braves for going after a Mitch Jones rather than an Austin Kearns is nonsense.

by fandave on Jan 5, 2010 1:32 PM EST reply actions