Next Season's Line-up?

[CharlotteBrave]

I've been thinking, and I've got no idea how our team will look next season. It's almost pointless to predict, but what are you guys thinking? Who will be 1st? Who will play OF? Who will be on our staff? Etc...

My guess would be:

1B - Chipper (Keep him healthier, maybe Canizares)
2B - Kelly Johnson (Trade for RP?)
SS - Esco
3B - Prado
LF - Diaz/Church
CF - McLouth
RF - Church/Heyward (?)
C - McCann, Ross
UTIL - Infante/Conrad/Schaefer(?)

Rotation:
1. Hudson
2. Lowe
3. Jurrjens
4. Hanson
5. Kawakami (Yack - would love him in long relief, not an inning eater at all)

Bullpen:
Moylan
O'Flaherty
Medlen
Soriano
Logan

I'm assuming we'd trade Gonzo and Vazquez (unfortunately :thumbsdown:), and then not resign LaRoche and GA. Not sure who we'd get, but this could start the conversation.

[Dreamscape]

Gonzo's a free agent. I'm thinking he'll be back because Soriano might be pricing himself out of the Braves range. I'd love for someone to convince Chipper he needs to move away from third and then sign Adrian Beltre or something. But I doubt he will make that move because he wants to stay where he's comfortable.

[wordslayer©]

The one thing I think they should be doing is looking hard at the third base position. They have no one in their system who is ready, so hopefully, they are making some arragments on acquiring someone who will be groomed for the position.

[MSbravefan]

Anyone else think McLouth should move down in the order?

1- LF signee
2- Prado (done too well here to move him from this spot)
3- Chipper
4- McCann
5- Escobar
6- McLouth
7- Diaz/Church/Heyward
8- 1B - Freeman/FA

Not sure who's out there as a leadoff candidate.. Just a thought, because it seems McLouth strikes out too much for my taste as a leadoff guy, but has a knack for driving in runs

[CharlotteBrave]

I love Esco at 6th, put McLouth at 5th, because he's got more power... I think you're right, I'd much rather get a true leadoff hitter and slide Nate back a bit.

[Bad Blood]

The real problem I see is that we traded Vasquez but have no new players. And history has shown that FW is not going to trade a major-leaguer and not get major-league talent in return.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to trade him. He's done well.

Finally, I think LaRoche stays...

[Agent-X-]

Not going to spit on your ideas, but both of your rosters have a lot of turnover happening. I don't think that's prudent for where the team is at. As for knocking down the doors, that's precisely what Heyward is doing, and you can expect him to get a lot of at bats in spring training. I won't be surprised if they hand him the starting position next season. Why? Because it financially makes sense.

Now one thing I believe is a given for next season is a marginal payroll increase to remain competitive with increasing salaries. In baseball, you can't just stay put with a fixed payroll cap, and as such we no longer have any imposed payroll cap.

That said, what's the deal with Hudson? Is there a team or player option with that contract? I'd heard that we may have seen the last of him after this season. If so, what makes anybody so sure that we want to take that risk with Hudson? Given his performance last season, I would estimate that Hudson would be our fourth best pitcher with our current staff... squarely behind Vazquez, Jurrjens, and Hanson.

Secondly, does anyone else think that the Braves will make a solid attempt to retain Gonzalez or Soriano? We have a proven commodity in them, and with the cash available, it would make sense to first focus on retaining your talent to solidify the positions of strength you already have. If Wren's smart, he looks to retain those strengths and then moves to make additions.

After that, the pieces can fall into place. One spot going to Heyward most likely. Look to address the offensive needs with solid players either via FA or trade.

[Agent-X-]

Okay, after looking into Hudson's contract... it is a mutual option for 2010 hinging on innings pitched this year. Good bye, Tim. You're not getting $10 million from Frank Wren.

So, with Hudson likely gone, it makes the situation all the more interesting with Javier Vazquez. Do we keep him and see if he can string two marvelous seasons together, or do we deal him and cash in on some young talent? Hard to say since having a big three in the rotation in Vazquez, Jurjjens, and Hanson is hard to pass up on. Plus there's Lowe and Kawakami eating up a fair amount of salary... we may just roll with that next year.

Makes sense if you consider we have bigger needs and the one piece of the team that is ready to freakin' roll is the rotation.

[CharlotteBrave]

The real problem I see is that we traded Vasquez but have no new players. And history has shown that FW is not going to trade a major-leaguer and not get major-league talent in return.

Also, I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to trade him. He's done well.

Finally, I think LaRoche stays...

I'd honestly rather have JV than Hudson, but it seems like everyone has pretty much accepted the fact that JV will not be a Brave next season, so that's why I assumed it.

[sdp]

There is no innings-pitched clause in Hudson's option. It's a pure club option for 2010 worth $12MM with a $1MM buyout. Hudson may void the option (unlikely) and would forfeit the $1MM buyout.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/atlanta-braves_15.html

[Agent-X-]

There is no innings-pitched clause in Hudson's option. It's a pure club option for 2010 worth $12MM with a $1MM buyout. Hudson may void the option (unlikely) and would forfeit the $1MM buyout.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/atlanta-braves_15.html

Would you exercise the option at $12MM and trade Vazquez?

[Agent-X-]

See? Now that's where I see a flaw. You can cut him...and lose trade leverage to find offense, or you can keep him and trade Vazquez to find that offense. Keeping Vazquez is a great idea....but cutting Hudson simply because we don't want to pay him is marginally bad.

So you would pay a guy $12MM when he hasn't really pitched in over a year, and you have no idea how he is going to be when he comes back? Tim Hudson is sort of an unknown. Plus, he wasn't exactly a model of consistency before the injury, so he may not be at the top of his game when he pitches.

I like the idea of dealing Vazquez, but I'm uncertain about what to expect from Hudson. He was having some decent seasons as our ace before he went down. I just have this sinking feeling in my gut that Hudson's better days are behind him. For $12MM, I can't help but think we could do better with our money and keep Vazquez. Of course, Hudson could prove me wrong and we come out of it stinking rich in good young talent.

[sdp]

It's a tough call, but I'd have a hard time paying $12MM to Hudson next year. I don't know how the "politics" of these things work, but I'd decline the option and try to re-sign him to a one year deal for around $7MM.

If the Braves feel comfortable with Lowe, Jurrjens, Hudson, Hanson, and Kawakami, then Vazquez could be traded for offensive assistance. Vazquez has been a model of consistency and solid as a rock this year but his contract situation vs. the Braves' needs brings up an interesting situation for the front office to deal with.

[IkeWagner]

If Freeman ends the year strong and makes us think that a 2011 appearance is going to happen, I wouldn't be surprised by a one-year LaRoche signing. It would make sense for the Braves, and it would make sense for Adam - It would give him a chance to stay in a comfortable place for a full year and try to put up some big numbers, to get some nice money on the FA market.

[wordslayer©]

I am a huge Vasquez fan, so I have no desire to see him moved in any manner. He's everything that Lowe should be. If we are trying to win, I just don't see how you can justify the move.

Most people around this site seem to appreciate him, but for the life of me, I am just stunned that he has been shipped around like he has, and doesn't get any more love than he does from baseball fans. Just doesn't make sense to me.

He never breaks down and may end his career with 3,000 strike outs and 200 wins. If he does, he will do it as quietly as any player in baseball has ever done it.

[wordslayer©]

I know what you mean, slayer...and I do appreciate the guy for what he's doing right now. However, I think what the frustrating thing about Vazquez is and was that he is an extreme tease. He'll have a season like he is having now followed by a simply average one.

For the most part, his career is just littered with teams trying to either dump him after a bad season or cash in on his value.

Montreal tried to cash in on his "ace" quality pitching. New York tried to dump him. He forced Arizona's hand and forced a trade to Chicago. After 3 up and down seasons there, Ozzie Guillen finally threw him under the bus and basically forced Kenny Williams to get rid of him (and I think Guillen was dead wrong on that one and it's obvious he was). For the price we paid to get him and Boone Logan, it's already been considered a steal. If we catapult his new-found value into retainable players to help us in 2010 and perhaps beyond, it becomes even more of a win than letting him pitch out his contract and leaving for two draft picks.

But back to the point. Vazquez is just a conundrum. One year he'll go ape (like he is right now) and he'll look almost completely lost in another year. I'm not saying he'll nose dive in 2010, but there's a damn good chance he won't be the front line starter we've grown to love and admire.

I agree with you about Ozzie Guillen.....may possibly be the biggest idiot I've ever seen in baseball.

My thing is about Vasquez is........his "bad" years were, at worst, average, but his good years have been damned fantastic.

Here's my thing BFH...and first of all, I have a lot of respect for what you do when you come up with these scenarios, because you put a helluva lot of thought into them, but the question I have for you is, are you trying to win the championship in the next year or so??? If you are, then you just don't move Vasquez, especially after soaking a boatload of money into Lowe.

If you aren't trying to win next year, then yeah, you move Vasquez for all you can, but then, if you are Wren, you look like a total dumba$$ for signing Lowe in the first place.

Will Vasquez be worse in 2010 than he is this year? Maybe, but that's because he's one of the best pitchers in major league baseball this year, so the chances are that he will slide a little, but there is nothing to me that suggests that he will see any kind of significant drop off next season.

But you are right.....you can't just win with pitching and defense. You need hitting and base running, and we do lack some of the latter, so it's obvious that some moves during the offseason need to be made. I don't love Tim Hudson. I barely even like him, but I believe I'd rather take my chances with him over the next two years than I even would with Lowe.

Gonna have to be some tough decisions that need to be made....that's for sure.

[CharlotteBrave]

Keep in mind that Vazquez is pitching completely out of his mind this season. He's on pace to set many career bests...or at least match a lot of career highs. Vazquez has a nasty little way of putting up a good year followed by a downer (in other words...average comparatively to other pitchers). There is no better time to trade Vazquez than now when his value is peaking. The only thing we have to be sure of is to not demand as much as the Blue Jays do for Halladay, otherwise we should be able to net a nice gain in service time and talent.

As for Hudson...do we really need him to pitch like an ace? Or even a #2? I know Lowe's not your typical ace, but he's been steady throughout his career and Jurrjens is quickly developing into a frontline starter. Not to ignore the fact that Hanson is immediately making an impact and we can only hope he progresses well also. Quading Vazquez with those three would be lethal as it is right now, but really...all the pitching in the world isn't going to save you when you don't score any runs and Heyward alone is not going to save our lineup.

With a rotation of Lowe, Jurrjens, Hanson, Hudson and Kawakami we should be able to keep down the better lineups in the NL. The only problem I envision is that if we were to trade Medlen (I lean for it and against it at times), there goes our rotational depth. I mean...there's always Jo-Jo Reyes, but yeah....you know. Jo-Jo Reyes.

Personally...would I take Hudson over Vazquez right at this very moment? No way. Vazquez is pitching out of his mind and I want him on the hill. Given history, though....pose the same question to me and I'd probably take Hudson because if you score him 4 runs, we win...Vazquez is very hit or miss (and has been very on this season, thankfully). I'm not saying Vazquez is lucky or some schmuck. I wanted to acquire him from about 3 or 4 years ago. It's just that his having the best year of his career and will likely price himself out of Atlanta after 2010 and leave for two draft picks. I'd rather get a retainable return for him than let him (or Hudson) leave for relatively nothing.

Haven't there been pitchers who all of the sudden "got it" later in their careers? I mean guys who had some stuff, but weren't that great until they got older. Could JV be one of these pitchers? Maybe, because everyone knows that when he's on, he's on. Some guys I'm thinking about are Kenny Rogers, Curt Schilling, Jamie Moyer, and I'm sure there are others I'm leaving off.

I didn't do any research, and I may be wrong, but it seems like there are plenty of pitchers who didn't "get it" until they were past 30, but once they "got it" they were aces until their body could no longer hold up.

Just a question, and food for thought if I'm right. (although I'm sure I'm not right. :confused:)

[CharlotteBrave]

Good stuff, BFH, I'm enjoying reading your analysis. Thanks for taking the time to do so.

[Dreamscape]

Looking at Vazquez's numbers, I've noticed some key ingredients into the year he is currently having. I've shared many of them with BFH, but here are some of the developments Vazquez has had this year. He's throwing fewer fastballs, slightly less than 50%, and relying more on his three plus pitches. He has his curveball and changeup working masterfully this year. Both rank with the best in the game this year. His slider, while good, has been hit but not too hard. That's one development. He has, I believe, been a little lucky because his line drive percentage is fairly high. Now, a theory I'm working with is that because he has shown great control, the line drives are being hit at well positioned ballplayers. But that's just a theory.

He's actually thrown less than 50% of his pitches inside the strike zone. For some pitchers, that's a big problem, but for Vazquez and the Braves, that is actually what they want. He's not missing, but hitting his spots. The best pitch in baseball is the pitch off the plate that is right to the catcher's glove. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are headed to the Hall of Fame because of that. The other significant change here is that his outside-the-zone percentage of balls hit has tumbled to 51.8%. The percentage of "non-strikes" being swung at are no different, but hitters simply aren't hitting the pitches as often. I think his curveball and changeup are directly responsible for that.

There is a lot of great things Vazquez has done this year.

I'd still trade him and here's why. I agree with BFH that you waste Hudson otherwise and you don't want to do that. Now, true, if Hudson gets hurt and misses most of the rest of the season, you stick with Vazquez, but the thing with Vazquez is he does appear to tighten up in crunch time. Leverage stats are giving the idea of clutch an actual real number to gauge and without paying attention to his playoff stats, he does have a career problem with high-pressure situations. Now, I don't know enough about this to say if this is generally a problem throughout the league, but it makes sense if you watch Vazquez. He can coast, but he has a real problem limiting the damage in innings, usually serving up a two-to-three run homer in the process. As I told BFH, you don't get to the playoffs without players like Vazquez. Unfortunately, players like Vazquez may hurt you in the playoffs.

But then, maybe they won't. Maybe it's all hogwash. But I do think you have to consider dealing Vazquez for a bat/reliever that are both ready to contribute next year. I'm under the impression that Mike Gonzalez will be the closer next year (if Bobby can stand his high-wire act) because Rafael Soriano will be too expensive (and he won't be as good as he is this year). I'll try to come up with a potential roster for next year later.

/this really should have been more brief.

[wordslayer©]

Looking at Vazquez's numbers, I've noticed some key ingredients into the year he is currently having. I've shared many of them with BFH, but here are some of the developments Vazquez has had this year. He's throwing fewer fastballs, slightly less than 50%, and relying more on his three plus pitches. He has his curveball and changeup working masterfully this year. Both rank with the best in the game this year. His slider, while good, has been hit but not too hard. That's one development. He has, I believe, been a little lucky because his line drive percentage is fairly high. Now, a theory I'm working with is that because he has shown great control, the line drives are being hit at well positioned ballplayers. But that's just a theory.

He's actually thrown less than 50% of his pitches inside the strike zone. For some pitchers, that's a big problem, but for Vazquez and the Braves, that is actually what they want. He's not missing, but hitting his spots. The best pitch in baseball is the pitch off the plate that is right to the catcher's glove. Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine are headed to the Hall of Fame because of that. The other significant change here is that his outside-the-zone percentage of balls hit has tumbled to 51.8%. The percentage of "non-strikes" being swung at are no different, but hitters simply aren't hitting the pitches as often. I think his curveball and changeup are directly responsible for that.

There is a lot of great things Vazquez has done this year.

I'd still trade him and here's why. I agree with BFH that you waste Hudson otherwise and you don't want to do that. Now, true, if Hudson gets hurt and misses most of the rest of the season, you stick with Vazquez, but the thing with Vazquez is he does appear to tighten up in crunch time. Leverage stats are giving the idea of clutch an actual real number to gauge and without paying attention to his playoff stats, he does have a career problem with high-pressure situations. Now, I don't know enough about this to say if this is generally a problem throughout the league, but it makes sense if you watch Vazquez. He can coast, but he has a real problem limiting the damage in innings, usually serving up a two-to-three run homer in the process. As I told BFH, you don't get to the playoffs without players like Vazquez. Unfortunately, players like Vazquez may hurt you in the playoffs.

But then, maybe they won't. Maybe it's all hogwash. But I do think you have to consider dealing Vazquez for a bat/reliever that are both ready to contribute next year. I'm under the impression that Mike Gonzalez will be the closer next year (if Bobby can stand his high-wire act) because Rafael Soriano will be too expensive (and he won't be as good as he is this year). I'll try to come up with a potential roster for next year later.

/this really should have been more brief.

Who has your computer? Are you sure you wrote this?

Do you really think that Vasquez, in such a small sample size, has something in him that doesn't allow him to win the pressure games?

Are you sure you aren't building an argument to back a preconceived belief?

I'm telling you...this is not the thing you typically believe. Did he lose the ability to handle pressure making it through the minor leagues? Does he break down in the pressure of regular season games? Does he consistently show poor performance with runners on in relation to how other pitchers do?

I may be losing it, but this just stuns me. Yes, you can pay .50 for a 50 dollar stock, but the 50 dollar stock is worth 50 dollars if it is with your team......it doesn't have to be with another team to be worth 50 dollars.

For you guys to believe that Vasquez should be traded, then you have to believe that we can win in the playoffs with Hanson/Jurrjens and Lowe. Maybe next year, but I can't see it yet. It would take a HELLUVA deal for me to move Vasquez. It would take a Halladay type of deal for me to move him.

Serious playoff contenders will give up a ransom for players like Vasquez, and there is a reason for that.

I usually agree with you guys 100% across the board, but this is one that I am just one that I am totally on the other side on.

But maybe you are right.......we certainly aren't winning with him, but I'd sure like to keep him and use a little more time to make the offense better other than just trading him away. I'd love to keep him.....wait for Heyward, use the offseason to make the offense better, and then see where things stand.

[4maddux_cy's]

In response I will add that other teams also know his history which will bring down his value slightly. I still think we should trade him.

[Dreamscape]

I fully admit my understanding on the issue isn't as fine-tuned as others. But looking at his leverage splits, there is a jump over his career from .708 OOPS in low leverage to .724 in medium leverage to .805 in high leverage. In addition, baseball-reference includes tOPS+ (total OPS+) and for a pitcher, a number of 100 is worse than usual for the split.

Vazquez's high leverage tOPS is sitting at 120 over his career, or 20% worse, if I'm right (and I probably am not). For more reference, this year, his high leverage tOPS+ is 114 and his three year (2007-09) average is 133 (extremely horrible last year). So, yes, I do believe there is some credit to the thought that Vazquez is one of those pitchers, for whatever reason, that does see his numbers take a drop that is more than should be expected for the situation.

As BFH is saying to me, there really is a reason Vazquez has moved around so frequently over the last six seasons. And I think we are finding it in his leverage numbers. Again, I'm not saying we should go out of our way to deal Vazquez and I remain a big fan of him because other than the high tendancy of groundball outs, he's my type of pitcher. But I think his biggest flaw can't be overlooked.

Slayer, you said, "It would take a Halladay type of deal for me to move him." I would say that's exactly what you should be thinking. Right after the World Series, there will be a small window open to deal Vazquez. You can't officially bring back Hudson and basically open your fly. You have to deal quickly and market Vazquez as the next best thing to Halladay and hope teams, especially those Riccardi scared off, will come calling.

[wordslayer©]

Thing with Vasquez, to me, is this.

He was traded, not because managers were smart enough to see his inadequacies, but because they were too dumb to realize his strengths.

Dream....you may be right. Maybe there is some evidence that he doesn't do as well in high leverage situations, but how is it that he can now handle the pressure of being one of the top pitchers in baseball? How is it that he can get out of tough situations now?

I'm not one to discount stats that I don't understand, and the one you quoted is one that I am not familiar with, so maybe there is some logic to it. I just don't know.

I think I'd feel much better moving him IF I felt that you could win during the playoffs with Jurrjens, Hanson, etc......but I'm just not there yet. I think you can get to the playoffs with them, but don't think you can win with them. Not yet, anyhow.

Hmmm.....am just going to have to think more on it. I'm usually the one that is quick to say that any one we have is for trade, but it's hard for me to get on the band wagon on this one.

Maybe if I could see what exactly we could get for him, then I could rationalize it. You all made some good points. I know this....if we were facing Vasquez in the playoffs and we were countering him with Jurrjens, I'd sure bet that we'd start off the series 0-1, no matter if our offense was improved or not.

[Dreamscape]

Just wanted to add to the discussion since I brought up the idea of, yes, almost clutch ability, this article from fangraphs (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/all-about-clutch/).

The second major point is that being clutch or not being clutch is NOT the same as being good or not being good. You do not need to raise your game in crucial situations to be a great player and those who do raise their games are not necessarily the most talented. A player with a .200 BA that hits .300 in crucial situations is, and should be, considered more clutch than someone with a .333 BA in all situations. The .333 is a better BA but it is not clutch because it did not constitute a raising of the game.

So, whether or not one wants to go too deep into the idea that Vazquez struggles more than his numbers would indicate he should in the most crucial situations, it needs to be understood that no matter how you take it, Javier Vazquez remains a very good pitcher. I do think it's important to remember the weaknesses of a player and I believe the number support Vazquez having a peculiar weakness, but again, that is not to take away from the player that he is.

One thing that is important about the numbers, to me, is the sheer length of them. As I grow to believe there can be something in the idea of being clutch, I think it's very important that it takes years to make a decision on. And in Vazquez's case, there are years of this particular infliction.

[warefreak]

I do want to point out that JV is with Bobby Cox now, not Guillen. If you had a boss that yelled, screamed, and then shamed you to the press when you have a bad game I would have a harder time in high pressure situations too. Bobby Cox is very famous for standing by his players no matter what... that's why players love and want to play for him. JV is having a career year because I think he knows Bobby has his back and he can relax and pitch without that pressue he had in Chicago.

However... I think we need to trade somebody as we need more offense. The two players I am hoping we can target is Brandon Wood, a top 3b prospect who is starting to suffer as the Angels have had him in the minors too long, and Lars Anderson who is one heck of a 1b prospect. If we got Lars we could move either him or Freeman to 3b and we'd have a VERY good Catcher, 1b, SS, and 3b future for years... Chipper is good but man he's only got so much time left.

Unfortunately we paid too much for Lowe and nobody will want that salary. Kenshin is not going to get the return we want. Hanson and Jurrjens... they are too good and make little $ so we're keeping them. That leaves two players... Hudson and Vasquez. Which one do you think will be traded? I am thinking Vasquez as Hudson needs to prove himself healthy and there's not enough time left in the year to bring up his trade value to Vasquez's. Then again... maybe neither as I think the Kenshin experiment might not last past this year. Having a rotation that consist of:

Jurrjens
Vasquez
Lowe
Hanson
Hudson

is downright exciting and scary to the apposing team. :D

[KB 34]

I'm starting to rethink my offseason positons. The outfield just might solve itself if Schafer and Heyward are ready to go next season. There's a logjam at 2B as Prado and KJ can both start on a lot of teams, meaning one of them is probably trade bait. 1B is potentially a problem but Freeman being ready could solve it or it's also an easy position to fill. The best approach may be to tweak the lineup and start working on the bullpen where the real mess will be. A bullpen of Moylan, Moylan, Moylan, Moylan, Moylan, Moylan, and a LOOGY isn't going to cut it if the Braves want to be even .500 or better. It's August 8 right now, so much for Hudson returning in June and I'll factor him in if he proves he can come back. I'm not close to being convinced that treading Vazquez leaves the Braves with a starting rotation that can compete even with an improved lineup and good bullpen, unless another SP is acquired somehow.

[bmcvay10]

I haven't been around for a while...but I am somewhat surprised that some of you are still riding that theory that Prado will flop sometime very soon. I've been waiting...

[KB 34]

Jorge Sosa, Nick Green, Charles Thomas, and other have ridden hot streaks for a lot longer than Prado. Prado could very well finish the season with great numbers but it will take a nice start next season to convince me this should be expected out of him. He's an adequate 2B or wickedly awesome utility player to me still but I'd love to be proven wrong.

[Wahoo]

I haven't been around for a while...but I am somewhat surprised that some of you are still riding that theory that Prado will flop sometime very soon. I've been waiting...

He's only had about a half season worth of ABs. Give it time. Not to say that he will completely flop, but it's hard to believe a kid that couldn't sniff .800 OPS in the minors is going to be an .800-.830 OPS hitter in the bigs.

[Agent-X-]

And before I get ready for my fiduciary class this evening, here's another crack at the roster for funsies.


SP Derek Lowe
SP Jair Jurrjens
SP Tommy Hanson
SP Tim Hudson
SP Kenshin Kawakami

LR Kris Medlen
MR Boone Logan
MR Manny Acosta
MR Eric O'Flaherty
MR Angel Guzman
SU Peter Moylan
CL Mike Gonzalez

CA Brian McCann
1B Micah Hoffpauir
2B Kelly Johnson
3B Chipper Jones
SS Yunel Escobar

LF Matt Diaz
CF Nate McLouth
RF Xavier Nady

CA David Ross
OF Ryan Church
IF Martin Prado
PH Chad Tracy
UT Omar Infante


Notable Names (Or lack thereof)

Javier Vazquez: Traded to the Chicago Cubs for Angel Guzman, Micah Hoffpauir and a top 10 prospect.

Xavier Nady: Boras client, but missed the year with Tommy John. Might be a stretch to say he'll be in right field...but it would only require a 1-year deal and won't break the bank as he probably looks to re-establish his value. He could also play some first base to get Hoffpauir out of the lineup if he doesn't produce to our liking.

Chad Tracy: Well...his value has hit rock bottom, basically. Fill in any name there, really. Any name we can probably invite to spring training on a split contract and presumably get some bench-type production with the idea of using this guy to spell Hoffpauir or others periodically.

EDIT:

Adding on Gonzalez...

Mike Gonzalez: Tommy made the good point about one of our receivers being re-signed if we had the available money. In either scenario where we non-tender Hudson or trade Vazquez we will likely have some money to play with and the cheaper of our two relievers (possibly by far) will be Mike Gonzalez. I've said before that Soriano could easily price himself into the $10M/year range and Gonzalez MIGHT price himself into the $7-8M/year range, but will likely settle in at around $6M/year. Surely the common sense thing to do would to spend the extra $3M for the security of Soriano's production, but you just can't sink that kind of money into a closer and come out on the other end okay, IMO. Especially not on an unknown commodity like Soriano, since you could either get a 2009-type year...or a 2008-type year. Gonzalez, aside from his Tommy John surgery, has been consistently erratic and I think the Braves will likely go that route.

I'm not gonna step all over your roster, but... well, I just can't help but notice some very unfamiliar names popping up at positions that surprise me. I don't know who you found for first base, so I'm gonna go out on a limb and make a supposition. What if Adam Laroche wants to remain in Atlanta? His comments the day after the trade really made it sound like Laroche wanted to forget that he ever left the Braves. I get the impression he is a Brave through-and-through, and maybe this is a good place for him to stay. Maybe? He can't cost too terribly much versus what it would cost to make a trade for that position. So your only other option is free agency.

My next thought is what's wrong with leaving Ryan Church in the OF? You're not the first person hypothesizing that we'll be okay if... if... if... we come up with two other guys. Okay, well I realize Diaz is a particularly attractive batter to get into a platoon, and I suppose that platoon would be with Church. I happen to think Church is a superior bat to Diaz and could be worthy of the full time starting job.

Other than that, I like your thinking. I sincerely hope Atlanta invests more in the bullpen this offseason than they do bats. :)

[Dreamscape]

I think LaRoche will get paid this winter. He's the best 1B on the market and plenty of teams might be interested, including Baltimore, the Mets, and the Giants. LaRoche would probably prefer staying in Atlanta, but he has to play the odds that he won't be the top 1B available (barring an Adrian Gonzalez deal) again. At his age, getting a three-to-four year deal and at least $24M (I consider that conservative) on the table would be impossible to give up considering the Braves are unlikely to sniff it. Remember that players are largely smart enough to say the right things when they are traded. I am very excited about this opportunity...would be great to make this a home past this season so I can settle...I've heard the city has great strip clubs. I just don't see LaRoche sticking with the Braves.

I am a little surprised by the Diaz in RF bit from BFH. I believe he has been a fan of platoon of Church and Diaz, which would be considerably better than either one of them starting full time. Ryan Church is not going to match what Matt Diaz does against lefties. He's a career .704 OPSer against lefties after all while Diaz OPS's .878 against lefties. As expected, the split is almost the exact opposite for righties (Church - .819, Diaz - .702). It's a great platoon situation for both players.

A player like Xavier Nady wouldn't be bad. Jason Heyward will be replacing him before midseason anyway.

[luvdembravos]

I agree with Agent-X.

If the Braves continue to play the remainder of the schedule like they have the past month and a half, I don’t think a lot of turnover is necessary. What was bringing us down early in the season was the entire right side (Francoeur, Schafer, Johnson and Kotchman). Those guys weren’t producing and the Braves couldn’t get anything going with the bottom of their line-up, particularly the 6 thru 8 hitters. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the team is playing better now that they replaced players at 1B, 2B, RF and CF. None of the replacements are all-stars … but all are better than what the Braves started out with this season.

I’m not really concerned about next year’s roster yet because there’s a lot of baseball left to play in 2009 and I just have a feeling that the Braves are going to get into the playoffs this year AND do well. Coming from me, that’s a huge turnaround because I’ve been one of the most pessimistic and cynical fans on this board for 4 years now … but as of late, I’m no longer bearish but bullish on the Bravos!

[Andy G.]

I think you're right luvdem. This team is headed to the playoffs! :thumbsup: *knocks on wood*

Hey BFH, why aren't a big fan of Freeman? Is it the power numbers he's put up this year? It seems like there are too many people who expect way too much from Freeman, but at the same time there are a lot of people who are down on him. I don't think we need to worry about his power. Playing at Myrtle Beach hurt his power numbers some, and after thriving immediately after his call up to AA, he's really struggling. He stilled showed power last year though, and at the age of 19 you can't really tell yet how strong he'll be. We can't really tell at this point, but at the very worst he's got to be somewhere between a .150 IsoSLG and a .200 IsoSLG. At the very best, he's got more power than he's shown yet.

[luvdembravos]

I think you're right luvdem. This team is headed to the playoffs! :thumbsup: *knocks on wood*

I'm joining Andy G's "Power of Positive Thinking" bandwagon before it gets too crowded come September! (Types while knocking on wood ;))

[Agent-X-]

Make that double for me! NL East, look out!

[BigWorm]

Gents,
I'm jumping in this one a litlle late, great stuff btw.

On LaRoche, I really think he'd take a fair one year extension, if we strike right now. He loves playing in Atlanta, and he's dumb enough to expect the same opportunities to be there for him in 2011 that will be there in 2010. By dumb, I mean cocky, self-confident. My money is on him extending here in the next few weeks. It will cost double the salary of Kotchman at the least.

[KB 34]

Even if LaRoche is that stupid and I can't imagine him being that stupid, his agent won't be stupid enough to let him sign a one year deal. There is no reason for him to sign a one year deal, no reason at all before exhausting his options on the free agent market. He may like Atlanta but he's not going to take a huge paycut to stay. The Braves acquired him full well knowing the chances are really good he was a rental for the rest of the season and that's not necessarily a criticism of the deal.

[Devil Wears Prado]

Where will Kimbrel and Marek be on our team next year? I think at least one of them will be on the major league team once the season starts...

[IkeWagner]

It doesn't look like Marek has been good at all this year.

[HaRdCoReBrAvEsFaN]

If LaRoche can't get a contract to his liking, I could see him taking a 1 year in Atlanta where he's comfortable with the hopes of turning in a season like he did in 2006...That said I'd be shocked for Roachy not to get at least a 2 year deal in the 7 mill per range with someone this off season, but I could be wrong...

[BigWorm]

Adam "Boomerang" LaRoche will be back next year. They always come back (pet cemetery and slayer).

[HaRdCoReBrAvEsFaN]

even if he dosen't...at least Roachy has provided us with some must needed pop from 1B and probally locking down at least Type B status and getting us at least 1 draft pick if he we let go him as a FA...

[Dreamscape]

If he is a Type A, it might hurt LaRoche like it hurt Orlando Cabrera. The way draft choices and young talent are beginning to be hoarded (too much so even), teams will look at LaRoche as a good stable player, but not a difference maker and may say "well, with someone else, he might not be as good of a player, but at least we won't have to give up a first rounder or a low second rounder."

Which may price LaRoche into the Braves plans oddly enough.

[Agent-X-]

Wagner would beat not doing anything as long as he came at a decent price. Aside from Wagner, I'd like to see the Braves do some wheeling and dealing and bring in a good arm. Another HoRam for Soriano deal would be excellent. :)