PDA

View Full Version : Braves Fire Sale?


Thome25
06-29-2006, 09:01 AM
I just read an online report that said the Braves could be cleaning house before the July 31st trade deadline.

It also said that Andruw Jones will most likely be traded in the offseason but, the Braves have some pitching to offer and the Yankmees and Blow Sawx are very interested in John Smoltz and Tim Hudson.

The most interesting part of the report was that it said to expect Kenny Williams to inquire about some of the Braves starting pitching because he understands that you can never have enough starting pitching and Josh Fields has been getting it done in AAA.

I'd have to say that this team doesn't particularly need anymore starting pitching. And I think we're fine right now in CF. But then again, I wouldn't complain if KW were to go after Hudson or Smoltz because that would hurt the Yankmees, Blow Sawx, and Tigers by making us stronger and by blocking those guys from joining the other AL contenders.

What do you think?

Tokes
06-29-2006, 09:09 AM
who would they take out of rotation though..or would they add another pitcher into it?

If they were to take someone out it would have to be between Vasquez, Freddy, or Garland, but I can't see that happening.

Thome25
06-29-2006, 09:11 AM
who would they take out of rotation though..or would they add another pitcher into it?

If they were to take someone out it would have to be between Vasquez, Freddy, or Garland, but I can't see that happening.

Yeah I agree. I don't think it's that close to reality but, it's just something interesting to think about.

Britt Burns
06-29-2006, 09:22 AM
I imagine that the price for any of Atlanta's front-line players would be very steep, given that a trade would be an admission by the club that their streak of winning the NL East was over. I wouldn't mind seeing Andruw Jones in center for us, although not for the BMac+Fields+a prospect or two price tag I'm sure it would carry.

I wonder what the club would look like today if the rumored Jones for Magglio trade had gone down before the 2004 season. Interesting to consider....

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2006, 09:31 AM
I have no problem if KW wants to stockpile starting pitching.

Would the Braves be interested in Josh Fields? Do they plan to move Chipper Jones (either to another team or to another position)?

If I were KW I would go after Hudson. He has recent AL experience, is younger than Smoltz, and is signed for less money ($6.5 million). i also would, in typically KW fashion, go after him very soon, in order to leave the Yanks, Red Cubs and Tigers to try to out-bid one another for Smoltz later in July.

He probably has not been what the Braves had hoped, but even though he went from the AL to the NL, he did go from a very pitcher-friendly park in Oakland (large foul territory and near sea level) to the so-called launching pad (Atlanta has the second or third-highest elevation of all MLB cities - I know Colorado is first, but I'm not sure if Phoenix is higher than Atlanta). He's also an extreme ground ball pitcher (2.25 GB/FB ratio is more than double Mark Buehrle's) who would benefit from the solid defense the Sox have.

The Sox then could move the weakest of their starters (maybe that would be Hudson?) into the bullpen, thereby strengthening the pen as well. Really, who would you rather have pitching in the seventh or eighth inning - Hudson/Garland/Vazquez, or Cliff Politte (all apologies to Dan Mega).
:D:

Who else besides Josh Fields would the Sox have to give up to get Hudson?

KW would have the strongest pitching staff in the MLB, hands down, and would have the market cornered this offseason with seven starting pitchers. (If Hudson is not signed beyond this year, KW would get compensated with two draft picks if Hudson left.) With what little is shaping up to be available on the free agent market, he could demand a king's ransom for any of them.

Thome25
06-29-2006, 09:55 AM
I have no problem if KW wants to stockpile starting pitching.

Would the Braves be interested in Josh Fields? Do they plan to move Chipper Jones (either to another team or to another position)?

If I were KW I would go after Hudson. He has recent AL experience, is younger than Smoltz, and is signed for less money ($6.5 million). i also would, in typically KW fashion, go after him very soon, in order to leave the Yanks, Red Cubs and Tigers to try to out-bid one another for Smoltz later in July.

He probably has not been what the Braves had hoped, but even though he went from the AL to the NL, he did go from a very pitcher-friendly park in Oakland (large foul territory and near sea level) to the so-called launching pad (Atlanta has the second or third-highest elevation of all MLB cities - I know Colorado is first, but I'm not sure if Phoenix is higher than Atlanta). He's also an extreme ground ball pitcher (2.25 GB/FB ratio is more than double Mark Buehrle's) who would benefit from the solid defense the Sox have.

The Sox then could move the weakest of their starters (maybe that would be Hudson?) into the bullpen, thereby strengthening the pen as well. Really, who would you rather have pitching in the seventh or eighth inning - Hudson/Garland/Vazquez, or Cliff Politte (all apologies to Dan Mega).
:D:

Who else besides Josh Fields would the Sox have to give up to get Hudson?

KW would have the strongest pitching staff in the MLB, hands down, and would have the market cornered this offseason with seven starting pitchers. (If Hudson is not signed beyond this year, KW would get compensated with two draft picks if Hudson left.) With what little is shaping up to be available on the free agent market, he could demand a king's ransom for any of them.

Great analysis. I'd have to agree with everything you wrote. Hudson is still in his early 30's has a relatively low salary and I believe he would benefit by coming back to the AL.

I also agree with your statement that one of the current starting pitchers could move to the bullpen if we were to acquire Hudson. By getting Hudson, KW would strengthen two areas of the team by getting only one player.

I don't want this to become a debate on who out of the Sox starters deserves to be demoted to the bullpen. It would have to be between Vasquez and Garland. PERIOD.

I'm not sure what it would cost us to get a Tim Hudson but if I was KW I'd do it. It would strengthen our bullpen, our starting rotation and set us up for a big trade in the offseason if we needed one.

KW IF YOU'RE LISTENING: GO FOR IT!!!!

BNLSox
06-29-2006, 11:31 AM
Wouldn't you think the cost of Hudson would probably include either Garland or BMac or both? Do you guys really believe Fields and additional prospects get this trade done? I'm just curious.

I have no doubt that BA will end up being a hell of a player, but if BA, Fields, and two other prospects brought us Hudson and Andruw, well that would just make things super peachy.

Ol' No. 2
06-29-2006, 12:30 PM
The Braves are not going to have a fire sale. Forget it. They might trade someone to fill holes, which at this point are LF and 1B, but they're not going to create another hole to do it. Hudson is young and still relatively cheap. He's not going anywhere unless he brings a king's ransom in return.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2006, 12:39 PM
Wouldn't you think the cost of Hudson would probably include either Garland or BMac or both? Do you guys really believe Fields and additional prospects get this trade done? I'm just curious.

I have no doubt that BA will end up being a hell of a player, but if BA, Fields, and two other prospects brought us Hudson and Andruw, well that would just make things super peachy.

Well, from the Braves perspective, I'm not sure they would even be interested in Fields. It depends on their plans for Chipper Jones. He's sort of the "face" of the organization, yet he's 34 and his numbers are declining slightly. Still, I've not heard his name in any trade rumors, and even so he would have to agree to a trade because he is a 10-5 player. Further complicating matters are the young players the Braves have (and presumably would want to keep) at first base and left field, the two positions to which Fields presumably could be moved.

But lets say Chipper Jones agrees to a trade. I'd bet they would start by asking for McCarthy and Fields for Hudson. KW's job would be to talk them down to Fields and their choice of any two minor league pitchers. I'm not sure the Braves would do that deal, though.

The Braves have a bunch of nice players - Chipper and Andruw Jones, Hudson and Smoltz - who could fetch a king's ransom of top-notch pitching prospects in return.

DSpivack
06-29-2006, 01:18 PM
I don't think Tim Hudson, John Smoltz, Chipper Jones or Andruw Jones are going anywhere. Perhaps someone else, but none of those four.

MrRoboto83
06-29-2006, 04:30 PM
Wouldn't you think the cost of Hudson would probably include either Garland or BMac or both? Do you guys really believe Fields and additional prospects get this trade done? I'm just curious.

I have no doubt that BA will end up being a hell of a player, but if BA, Fields, and two other prospects brought us Hudson and Andruw, well that would just make things super peachy.

Why would the Braves want to trade Hudson(6.5 million) for Garland (9 million). Not to mention Garland has a no trade clause.

RKMeibalane
06-29-2006, 05:05 PM
Not to mention Garland has a no trade clause.

What no-trade clause? :cool:

Lip Man 1
06-29-2006, 05:30 PM
Great...get John Smoltz and say good night Cliffy.

Lip

bigfoot
06-29-2006, 06:30 PM
Great...get John Smoltz and say good night Cliffy.

Lip

And you keep Smoltz from those pesky
Tigers!

buehrle4cy05
06-29-2006, 08:57 PM
Just a question: who would Detroit have to give up out of their farm system to get Smoltz? I'm not up on their current prospects.

Frater Perdurabo
06-29-2006, 09:16 PM
Great...get John Smoltz and say good night Cliffy.

Lip

Is Smoltz's age of 39 - 9 years older than Hudson - the reason that you would prefer him over Hudson? If he was 49, would you prefer Smoltz even more?
:tongue:

If Smoltz was substantially "cheaper" in trade than Hudson, then I too would go for Smoltz. Otherwise, though, I prefer Hudson.

Sargeant79
06-29-2006, 10:19 PM
The only way we acquire Hudson or Smoltz is if one of our starters is included in the deal. Nobody from our rotation belongs in our bullpen. Garland or Vazquez make way too much money to be middle relievers, and neither one is going to supplant Bobby Jenks in the closer's role. Garland has a no-trade clause, and Contreras and Buehrle aren't going anywhere. And if the Braves are unloading players, acquiring Vazquez or Garcia makes absolutely no sense for them.

The only somewhat realistic possibility for us would be Andruw Jones, and even that is a stretch. Brian Anderson would almost certainly go in a deal like that, and I bet the Braves would want McCarthy + a Fields level prospect as well. That's just too much.

I don't really see anything happening here involving us.

Tragg
06-30-2006, 08:11 AM
Getting these used up braves would be a one year move...and seriously hamper our ability to compete for the next several years, in contrast to the way we are set up now.
Tim Hudson is a good pitcher (sporting a 4+ NL ERA) but not an elite pitcher. Smoltz and Jones are hard-used players...they play all the time and hard. I have no doubt that the Braves would love to exchange at least Jones and Smoltz for A grade prospects/young players like Fields, Anderson, McCarthy; that would help them contend for another 16 years, which is what WE should be looking to do.

WSox8404
06-30-2006, 09:09 AM
who would they take out of rotation though..or would they add another pitcher into it?

If they were to take someone out it would have to be between Vasquez, Freddy, or Garland, but I can't see that happening.

Its not going to happen but for arguments sake I would say if it did they would take out Vazquez. I doubt they would touch Garland seeing as he was with us last year when we won it all.

woodsdavid
06-30-2006, 10:17 AM
We're OK in CF??!

Andruw Jones:

gold glove
all-star
most likely is untouchable (although I used to say that about Mags)
Brian Anderson:
sound of crickets here


What would it take?!

Lip Man 1
06-30-2006, 01:06 PM
Frater:

Can Hudson pitch out of the bullpen? In a word...no.

That's why if you can you get Smoltz and give him the 8th inning and on days Jenks isn't available you 'close' with him.

Lip

gobears1987
06-30-2006, 01:09 PM
I would like Andruw Jones. I know KW wants him. If we can lock Crede up, I wouldn't mind giving up Fields for Jones.

gobears1987
06-30-2006, 01:11 PM
Getting these used up braves would be a one year move...and seriously hamper our ability to compete for the next several years, in contrast to the way we are set up now.

Isn't this the same argument used by the KW haters after the Garcia move? I remember how I was one of the few people here who liked the deal and thought Garcia was worth what we gave up for him. Kenny will only make a big deal if he believes he can get them to stay.

DSpivack
06-30-2006, 02:20 PM
I would like Andruw Jones. I know KW wants him. If we can lock Crede up, I wouldn't mind giving up Fields for Jones.

Fields? I think you'd have to start with Fields, McCarthy, Anderson, AND Sweeney. No thanks.

gobears1987
06-30-2006, 02:35 PM
Anyone remember when there was the Maggs for Andrue Jones trade rumor? I'm starting to wish KW did that.

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2006, 03:32 PM
Frater:

Can Hudson pitch out of the bullpen? In a word...no.

That's why if you can you get Smoltz and give him the 8th inning and on days Jenks isn't available you 'close' with him.

Lip

Have you ever seen Hudson pitch from the pen? If not, how can you say he cannot do so? In any case, if the Sox got Hudson (an admittedly big IF), they could move Garland or Vazquez to the pen for the rest of this year.

I'm certainly OK with Smoltz in the Sox pen (although he probably would veto a trade to the Tigers' chief rivals in the AL Central, especially since he's known to prefer to start rather than pitch out of the pen), but I'd just prefer Hudson.

INSox56
06-30-2006, 04:09 PM
Prefer Hudson? have you SEEN his stats this year? Especially his last few starts...he's horrible. I honestly wouldn't give up Fields for anyone on that crappy team. They're crappy for a reason btw. They're getting Fields work in the OF, and he's such a good athlete that I HIGHLY doubt he wouldn't succeed out there...look at his progress in just a year and change at 3B even. Andruw Jones is on the downswing in his career I believe, not worth the money for what we'd be stuck with and losing such a good prospect. The only person on that team I'd take is MAYBE Smoltz. He's no spring chicken either.

DSpivack
06-30-2006, 04:22 PM
. Andruw Jones is on the downswing in his career I believe, not worth the money for what we'd be stuck with and losing such a good prospect. The only person on that team I'd take is MAYBE Smoltz. He's no spring chicken either.

You say Andruw Jones is on the downside of his career and yet you want Smoltz? Jones had 51 HRs last year, is having another good season, has 319 career HRs, and won't turn 30 until next season.

Tragg
06-30-2006, 04:38 PM
Isn't this the same argument used by the KW haters after the Garcia move? I remember how I was one of the few people here who liked the deal and thought Garcia was worth what we gave up for him. Kenny will only make a big deal if he believes he can get them to stay. Hardly, there are numerous distinctions; the only objection really to the Garcia deal was giving up too much on paper...we will give up a lot more for the hard-used and 40 year old Smoltz should we get him. Garcia was a relatively young player, not a 40 year old brave. We didn't trade a pitcher like McCarthy; we didn't trade one of the best defenders in the league like Anderson.

I could turn the silly stereotypes around....didn't we hear the same kind of stuff when people wanted to trade McCarthy and Crede and Contreras for the great AJ Burnett and Lowell? (I mean, they beat the cubs). Yes I believe we did. I was one of the few who thought that deal ludicrous and said at most Burnett is worth Contreras straight up. We don't know if Kenny wants to make it or not, so "trust Kenny" could apply to the people who want to trade for used up Braves just as easily as those who don't.

Let's not forget the pining for Juan PIerre. Even today, some suggest we trade for Howry...he's no different than when he was here (except for ONE fluke year in Cleveland), he's the same old arsonist, but he's not on the Sox.
Anderson plays stellar defense - some of the best in the league. He's hit everywhere he's played. McCarthy is an extremely promising young pitcher. That's the kind of talent you keep. People wanted to dump Garland, to dump Crede. You have to give young players with the skills a chance, or you'll have a bunch of Juan Pierres, Mark Grudzalaneks and assorted other stiffs on the team. They aren't all ML ready first time out like MB was.

I like surplus for surplus trades that are good for both teams...like the Thome deal. The Riske deal. The Marte deal; even the Glover deal (even though Eyre is the better pitcher). Just my preference.

Lip Man 1
06-30-2006, 07:12 PM
Frater:

I love how you make it sound so easy to move from the starters role to the bullpen.

Obviously you never pitched before.

Hudson has never pitched a day in his life in the bullpen and Ozzie is not going to start playing 'mind-games' with Vasquez and Garland. In fact it was already published about a month ago where Cooper was quoted as saying that under no circumstances would Garland be moved to the bullpen.

Please. The two are NOT interchangable...it's different preperations, different mental attitudes and different circumstances.

Smoltz has been an elite closer and an elite starter. He could make the transition and has...Hudson would never be able to adapt with only three months left in the season.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
06-30-2006, 10:01 PM
Frater:

I love how you make it sound so easy to move from the starters role to the bullpen.

Obviously you never pitched before.

Hudson has never pitched a day in his life in the bullpen and Ozzie is not going to start playing 'mind-games' with Vasquez and Garland. In fact it was already published about a month ago where Cooper was quoted as saying that under no circumstances would Garland be moved to the bullpen.

Please. The two are NOT interchangable...it's different preperations, different mental attitudes and different circumstances.

Smoltz has been an elite closer and an elite starter. He could make the transition and has...Hudson would never be able to adapt with only three months left in the season.

Lip

If it is so difficult to move from the rotation to the pen, what makes you think a 39 year-old Smoltz could do it on the fly? After all, a few years ago he moved to closer during the offseason and had several months to prepare for his new role. When he returned to the rotation a year or two later, the change was made over another offseason. This year, he's been starting, just like Hudson. It seems to me that asking a 39 year-old Smoltz to make the change mid-season is much more problematic than asking Garland, Vazquez or Hudson to do so. All three are much younger than Smoltz, who is much closer to AARP membership eligibility than he is to the legal drinking age. In fact, Garland threw out of the pen as recently as 2004, and moved into that role, albeit briefly, during the middle of the season!

Moreover, as a 5-and-10 player, what makes you think Smoltz would approve a trade to the team directly competing for the AL Central crown with the Tigers - the team he grew up rooting for (he grew up in Warren, Michigan), the team that drafted and developed him, and the team that he publicly has said he would be willing to join!?!? I don't know Hudson's contract status, but I do know he's not a 5-and-10 player. If he does have a no-trade clause, I'll bet he'd be more likely to approve a trade to the Sox than Smoltz would.

In any case, give me the best pitcher available, and sort out the roles from there. Your solution seems to be find the most fossilized relic and roll him out to the mound with his walker, a hearing aid and some Metamucil. So, how's that Jeff Nelson acquisition working out for us? Or are you too busy gnashing your teeth every time Matt Thornton strikes out an opposing batter on a 97 mph fastball?
:rolleyes:

I love arguing with you, Lip.
:D:

getonbckthr
07-01-2006, 12:33 AM
Obviously this requires Garland to waive his clause. But could we possibly do a deal like we did to get Colon. In that deal we made a deal with the Yanks for El Duque then shipped him and prospects to Montreal for Colon. Here is what I propose:
West Coast Team (LAD,LAA, ARI, SD, SF) gives us a couple prospects
Sox Give Garland (requiring waiving his clause)
Braves give Sox Hudson
Sox give West coast prospects and our own prospects
From the Sox point of view we gave up Garland and prospects for Hudson.
For the Braves they may end up with between 4-6 prospects for Hudson.
For the west coast team they give a few prospects for a Young, inning eating, long term contract starter that could possibly give them the boost to break away from the pack.

rowand33
07-01-2006, 12:39 AM
Obviously this requires Garland to waive his clause. But could we possibly do a deal like we did to get Colon. In that deal we made a deal with the Yanks for El Duque then shipped him and prospects to Montreal for Colon. Here is what I propose:
West Coast Team (LAD,LAA, ARI, SD, SF) gives us a couple prospects
Sox Give Garland (requiring waiving his clause)
Braves give Sox Hudson
Sox give West coast prospects and our own prospects
From the Sox point of view we gave up Garland and prospects for Hudson.
For the Braves they may end up with between 4-6 prospects for Hudson.
For the west coast team they give a few prospects for a Young, inning eating, long term contract starter that could possibly give them the boost to break away from the pack.

Hudson really hasn't been very much better than Garland this season.

getonbckthr
07-01-2006, 12:55 AM
Hudson really hasn't been very much better than Garland this season.
Match him with Cooper and he will be back to his Oakland days if not better. Also starting with 07 contracts compare like this (including Hudson's team option later in the contract) Hudson 4/44 million, Garland 2/22. Both equalling an average of 11 million per season only Hudson has a longer term. The key however is next season Garland will make 4 million more than Hudson. That 4 million could be used towards Crede's long term deal. Following 07 the Sox can either deal Hudson some where else or keep him and pay him 13 million in 08 and 09 with 2010 an option year of either 12 million or a 1 million buy-out.

Lip Man 1
07-01-2006, 07:34 PM
Hey Thornton's doing well and that's great...considering how dismal the bullpen was at the start of the year, I'd sure as hell expect a former first round draft pick to finally show something positive.

Can he do it in the long term? We'll see...

Regarding Smoltz the fact is he was an elite closer and if anyone could make the transition in a short period of time it's someone who has the experience. Hudson doesn't...period...end of discussion.

Oh Nelson in his short stint was still a hell of a lot better then Boone Logan, Charlie Haegar and their ilk wasn't he? Or would you rather have those saps still throwing meatballs?

:rolleyes:

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
07-01-2006, 09:29 PM
Oh Nelson in his short stint was still a hell of a lot better then Boone Logan, Charlie Haegar and their ilk wasn't he? Or would you rather have those saps still throwing meatballs?

:rolleyes:

Lip

Nelson had a lower ERA than Logan, but he benefitted from subsequent Sox pitchers bailing out his sorry rear end each time he appeared. He was so ineffective, Ozzie usually pulled him after one or two batters. In his impressive 2.2 innings of work, Nelson allowed FIVE walks, THREE hits and a homer. His WHIP was 3.00 (compared to 2.13 for Logan). Both of them sucked (as did Haeger), but for all the fanfare and the anticipatory buildup you provided, Nelson was absolutely BRUTAL.

Let's look at his individual game stats:

5/23: .1 innings, 1 walk
5/24: gave up a hit to the only batter he faced on the FIRST pitch
5/27: in one inning, gave up a solo homer, and was tagged with the loss
5/29: in one inning, he gave up a walk
6/1: .1 innings, 1 walk
6/2: threw five pitches and gave up a hit to the only batter he faced

In every single appearance, Nelson allowed a baserunner via hit, walk or homer. Yep, Nelson really was the answer to the bullpen's woes! (For the record, Logan allowed a run in four of his 12 appearances and actually pitched 8.1 scoreless innings - his record was skewed by two really bad outings - one against Minnesota and one against Tampa Bay.)
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

For the final time, I'm OK with Smoltz. But good luck getting him to approve a trade to the White Sox.
:rolleyes::rolleyes: