What to do with Vazquez next season...

[Devil Wears Prado]

What do you guys want to do with Javier Vazquez next season? Trade him? Keep him?

[Agent-X-]

To elaborate on my thoughts...

If you keep Vazquez, it presents the unique situation (at least lately) of being overstocked on starting pitching. We'll have 6 starters...and believe me, it'd be a welcomed problem to have.

Some will throw out the idea of trading Lowe ($15M/year) or Kawakami ($6.667M), both of which are good ideas. However, good luck finding a team willing to take on $15M for an ace that is more like a #2 at his best. Additionally, despite the fact that he'll have some value for his solid work this season and reasonable price, trading Kawakami 1) doesn't free up nearly enough money to fill our roster adequately for 2010 and 2) will not net enough of a return to fill out our 2010 roster. Continuing on that thought, we should NOT be relying on Heyward, Freeman, Kimbrel, and <Fill in your favorite prospect here> to play significant roles in 2010...at least not at the beginning of the year. Allow these guys to slowly step into their roles with the team as Hanson did this season.

After reading that spew, the next handful of people will step back and say "Ok...then don't pick up Hudson's option." Good idea also. It saves us $11M, but the problem is now you have a full 5-man rotation and no leverage with which to trade from. Which, in all honesty, is perfectly fine. You now have to go and find two bullpen arms and a stop gag for RF and 1B with $11M. Or...you can dip into your farm system once again to fill those holes. Then again...it's the same way Schuerholz got himself into trouble and screwed us over.

The best way to keep your trade leverage and to fill your roster adequately for 2010 and perhaps beyond is to pick up Hudson's option and trade Vazquez...and to do it quickly before the market on pitching gets heated up (Credit to Dreamscape for the 'trade him quickly' idea). Trading Vazquez not only frees up about $11M, it will probably bring in a return that will allow us to plug one of the vacated bullpen spots, first base until Freeman is ready in another year and a half or two and perhaps even land us a Gorkys Hernandez-type prospect in which we can develop or package up in the future. With the freed up payroll space, you can now find yourself a closer in a saturated market and even a stop-gag right fielder to allow Heyward a smidgen of time to play at Gwinnett (and to delay his arbitration clock so Hanson and Heyward don't rake us in arbitration for the first time in the same year).

Believe me. I've wanted to have Vazquez on our team for a long time. Trading him would not be at the top of my list of priorities if I were in Frank Wren's shoes...but from a business stand point, I could see why this is the most logical and feasible path to take. For me...it makes too much sense to move him when he could be the "cheaper" alternative in salary and package size to Roy Halladay despite the obvious gap between the two pitchers.

I appreciate all the effort you put into these analysis, BFH. I have highlighted the part that has me wondering. You say we won't free up enough money, but exactly how much money will we be freeing up in the offseason anyway? What will our predicted payroll be before free agency? Also, what figure are presuming to be our self-inflicted "cap"?

I would think that dictates whether we deal Vazquez or not. I don't have a problem trading Vazquez and banking on Hudson to be our #3. I just prefer to wait and see what our payroll figures will be before assuming we need to free up money to fill needs. Maybe this offseason Atlanta will be in a position to be predominantly buyers rather than traders.

[wordslayer©]

To elaborate on my thoughts...

After reading that spew, the next handful of people will step back and say "Ok...then don't pick up Hudson's option." Good idea also. It saves us $11M, but the problem is now you have a full 5-man rotation and no leverage with which to trade from. Which, in all honesty, is perfectly fine. You now have to go and find two bullpen arms and a stop gag for RF and 1B with $11M. Or...you can dip into your farm system once again to fill those holes. Then again...it's the same way Schuerholz got himself into trouble and screwed us over.


I swear...I am not trying to wear you out about this, and honestly, it probably really doesn't matter since neither of our opionions don't mean $hit to the front office....but.......

I want to make sure I understand this. You want to trade off one of the top pitchers in baseball this year for two bullpen arms......stop gap right fielder and someone to fill in at first base? You also want a prospect of the Gorky type too, right?

Heyward is ready. Schafer will be back. The outfield will be fine. Fill in at first base for a while and you can make some shrewd trades/or sign for some bullpen arms.

Here's my thinking.....you don't have to be strong at every position. Every team has some weak areas. If you want to win next year, we just work with what we have and don't give away the stallion.

And I only wish we could trade Lowe. ain't happening. We *might* be able to trade Kawakami, though. I'd like to trade him for some bullpen arms.

[Agent-X-]

The assumption is that we do not raise payroll significantly like we did last season. I know many are expecting a payroll bump, but I'm not one to hold out hope that Liberty Media will be as understanding of free-spending this winter with the economy not righting itself just yet.

By my calculation, which I've had on a spread sheet from around April or May on my PC at home (which I'm not home right now), we have about $90M after we pay arbitration figures to most players. For those arbitration figures, I think I've low-balled a couple of our guys. Our payroll for 2009 was around $96M, which more or less means we'd have about $6M to spend. That's including Hudson's option and without cutting anyone. We would still be missing a two bullpen spots, a first baseman, a right fielder and a bench spot. Personally, I don't see us being able to fill all those spots with $6M without having to heavily rely on rookies and doing the silly thing of deciding to allow Hanson and Heyward to hit arbitration at the same time.

If there's a way to keep Vazquez, Hudson and all the payroll and still be able to add enough punch to the bullpen, lineup and bench....great. I just don't see a way we'll be able to maintain our team's great depth (which is the only reason we're still contending this season) without moving Vazquez in a deal that will restore the depth that we will certainly be losing a part of this coming winter.

Excellent response.

That said, are you hesitant to have Heyward starting in RF next season? Would you honestly presume to hold him at Gwinnet just to avoid arbitration for another season, especially if the guy is hammering the ball like Barry Bonds every where he goes? Maybe I'm being shortsighted, but I don't believe we need to fill any OF spots... not even for a half a season. McLouth, Church, and Diaz have got two spots held down. Then there's Schafer and Heyward that you need to consider as potential starters.

If money's so tight, then I think you forget about the OF as a need and worry about 1B, the two bullpen spots, and a bench guy. Those are legitimate needs. I think 1B is a real concern (do you look at resigning Laroche or go after a guy like Nick Johnson?), and if we are serious about contending next year then shouldn't we primarily be concerned with the bullpen?

So I understand that the Braves may only be about $6 million under budget going into free agency, and that's not enough to get a 1B and two MR's.

[Andy G.]

BFH, I'm confused why the money that is coming off the books with the departure of Soriano and Laroche/Kotchman isn't mentioned in your posts. Isn't that like 10 or 11 million between them? Maybe that money is being spent in arbitration, but if we have that money plus the money saved from declining Hudson's option, would we have more than six million to spend in free agency?

I don't think Wren is going to do anything to the outfield. I don't think the situations with Heyward and Hanson are that similar. Hanson would have been better than the guys who started some games for us as the fifth starter this year before he came up, but how many extra wins would we have gotten from that? We had Lowe, Vazquez, Jurrjens and Kawakami in the rotation. A couple of guys filled in for the fifth spot, and were skipped frequently after off days. The difference in wins between going that route and calling up Hanson to be the #5 is not that big. Just because Wren decided to save some money in that situation doesn't mean he'll do the same with Heyward.

Calling up Heyward to start the year actually makes sense with your theory of going the path of least resistance. We can trade our best starter to fill the outfield hole(among others) or we can bring up Heyward.

Meldlen is rarely brought up when talking about next season's bullpen, but he might be our set up man next year. I could see Gonzo coming back and Medlen taking the eighth inning from Moylan. That would leave us with Gonzo, Medlen, Moylan and O'Flaherty to anchor the rotation. Bobby has said he thinks of O'Flaherty as a full inning reliever in the future.

Also, I read on the AJC's website the other day where Wren mentioned Schafer as being a big part of the future. I don't think this season has been as big of a set back for him as it would appear.

So, with all that said, I don't think it's necessary to trade Vazquez. I love Tim Hudson, so a big part of me really wants to see him stay in Atlanta. I don't know if it's possible to keep them both, but I don't think we need to trade Vazquez in order to put together a really good team next year.

[KB 34]

It's always a hard sell when you're trying to convince me the best way to help a team is to deal a pitcher like Vazquez has become this season. The bottom line for me is he's incredibly valuable and not a pitcher I want to see dealt. However, he is going to be a free agent at the end of next season and nearly impossible to keep after that. That is the only argument I can fully endorse for trading him. I'll believe Hudson can come close to replacing him when I see it, and having Vazquez in the rotation in itself does a lot to help the bullpen. The more I think about it the more I think Vazquez needs to be traded and not because the team will be better off next season because of it, but because the longterm assets acquired for him will be better longterm than a season of Vazquez.

[jamminHANES]

Pick up Hudsons option and have Lowe close. Medlen, Moylan, and EOF can be the primary set up men.

[bravos4evr]

You just can't be paying a closer Lowe's money.... it just makes no sense!

[KB 34]

I'm not convinced Lowe would be able to transition to closer and with his contract no way it happens. I hope the Braves try to dump it by eating $5 million/year but that's unlikely. I will say this, without significant upgrades to the bullpen this looks like a 75 win team next season to me. The Braves need two solid relievers to replace Soriano and Gonzalez, or a combination of one of them and a replacement or I see trouble. The good news is a reliever is cheaper than a starter and no, I don't want to see a starter moved to the bullpen outside of Hudson and his TJ situation because from a financial standpoint it makes no sense.

[Agent-X-]

Except that it would make no sense to execute Hudson's option (@ $12 million I think) and stick him in the bullpen. I would think you go shopping for two relievers with that kind of money.

Outside of the bullpen, I'm really not concerned about the offense. We need a 1B and that's it other than bench... but bench is a luxury not a dire need.

[Hobbes]

.... it just makes no sense!

http://thelasthonestman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chewbacca_defense.jpg


Except that it would make no sense to execute Hudson's option (@ $12 million I think) and stick him in the bullpen. I would think you go shopping for two relievers with that kind of money.
Except that Hudson is returning from arm surgery and many believe that it would be easier (and better for his arm) to ease him back via the bullpen instead of going straight to starting.

[Agent-X-]

http://thelasthonestman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/chewbacca_defense.jpg



Except that Hudson is returning from arm surgery and many believe that it would be easier (and better for his arm) to ease him back via the bullpen instead of going straight to starting.

Yes, I buy that logic with Hudson, but in the big picture that looks bad for the Braves when you consider dealing Vazquez and depend on Hudson to be your #3 or even just one of your five guys in the rotation. We can eat that... eat that just fine... who do we have pitching fifth in that scenario?

I don't like the prospect of devoting all that money to Hudson if he may not even be able to start for a couple of months... where's the leverage? Couldn't that be money better spent elsewhere? :(

[Andy G.]

By the time next season starts Hudson will be fully recovered from Tommy John. He'll be ready to start games in the majors in about two weeks. Then he has the entire offseason to stay in shape and get to 100%. If Hudson is in the rotation next year we shouldn't have to worry about Tommy John setting him back.

Don, I feel like you don't give Hudson enough credit. He's a very good pitcher. He's only put up an ERA above 3.53 twice in his career. Once was his second year in the majors and the other was his second year with the Braves.

[Agent-X-]

I agree. I've slightly underrated Tim Hudson because he is coming off of an injury and he is an expensive option. I've slowly warmed to the idea... and I think I may have misunderstood KB when he said he didn't want to see any starters go to the bullpen except Tim Hudson... because maybe he meant this season. I got my wires crossed and thought he meant next season.

If that was the case, then I'd be concerned with that move.

[KB 34]

To clarify as a general rule I'm against moving starting pitchers to the bullpen because starting pitchers have more value and should be traded for relievers if the situation comes up. The exception is Hudson this season as he's coming off serious surgery and I don't expect him to be himself yet. As far as next season he would have to be a starter for me to think about giving him $12 million, and even then he needs to perform this season before I'm interested in that option year. Am I the only one who thinks there's a chance Hudson declines his part of the $12 million? It hasn't been discussed here but I certainly think the chances of it happening are above negligible.

[wordslayer©]

By the time next season starts Hudson will be fully recovered from Tommy John. He'll be ready to start games in the majors in about two weeks. Then he has the entire offseason to stay in shape and get to 100%. If Hudson is in the rotation next year we shouldn't have to worry about Tommy John setting him back.

Don, I feel like you don't give Hudson enough credit. He's a very good pitcher. He's only put up an ERA above 3.53 twice in his career. Once was his second year in the majors and the other was his second year with the Braves.

Just curious.....if you were betting, who do you think will have the better year next year? Hudson or Lowe?

[Agent-X-]

To clarify as a general rule I'm against moving starting pitchers to the bullpen because starting pitchers have more value and should be traded for relievers if the situation comes up. The exception is Hudson this season as he's coming off serious surgery and I don't expect him to be himself yet. As far as next season he would have to be a starter for me to think about giving him $12 million, and even then he needs to perform this season before I'm interested in that option year. Am I the only one who thinks there's a chance Hudson declines his part of the $12 million? It hasn't been discussed here but I certainly think the chances of it happening are above negligible.

I would think Tim would be lucky to get that amount for next season. Wouldn't he?

[KB 34]

If Hudson is healthy he's a better pitcher than Lowe or Burnett and their price was in the range of $15 million/year for a long time. The free agent market doesn't strike me as being swamped with talent either. If Hudson pitches lights out in September I think he could get a better deal on the market, especially a longer deal.

[Andy G.]

Just curious.....if you were betting, who do you think will have the better year next year? Hudson or Lowe?
That's tough. I think Lowe will be better next season than he's been so far this season. I don't think he's declined this year to a pitcher only capable of a 1.40 WHIP. I know some people are going to hate me for doing this, but besides those two awful stars in June, his WHIP is 1.29. I'm not saying, "Hey, he's really this good and his 1.41 WHIP can be thrown out". I'm just saying that we know what kind of pitcher Derek Lowe is, and those two starts were obvious aberrations. Over the past four seasons his WHIP has been 1.25, 1.27, 1.27 and 1.13. He had a monster second half last year, and the Baseball gods have made him(and the Braves) pay for it with an unusually bad season thus far. I don't think age has caught up with him. I don't think it will until the last two years of his deal when he starts to fall off, and with his late move to starting pitching and his genetic gifts(in terms of being durable), it might not be until the last year of his contract. He's a horse.


Tim Hudson was pitching more and more like his Oakland years before he got hurt, except that he wasn't striking guys out. He wasn't giving up hits or walking people. In '08 he was giving up 7.9 H/9. He hadn't limited hits that well in five years before that. He was only walking 2.5 batters per nine innings. I don't think that it's the same situation as Lowe. I think Hudson's small frame caught up with him in '05 and '06(which Billy Beane had the foresight to see coming), but then he figured out how avoid the pesky oblique problems and became sort of a different pitcher as he adjust his delivery and his repertoire a bit(which Billy Beane probably didn't foresee coming). That is encouraging to me. He's already shown the ability to adjust after an injury and find new(ish) ways to be affective. I have a lot of confidence in Tim Hudson to come back from Tommy John and pitch well. The other day he said that during his rehab his split finger has been better than it's been in a long time. If he has that pitch down and continues to find ways to be affective, Tim Hudson will have a better year than Derek Lowe.

So, short version, I'd go with Hudson, but Lowe won't be much worse.

[Chris_Moderato]

I have a feeling that Mark Prior might just call it a career at this point. I'm not basing that on anything sustantial, of course. Just a hunch.

[Gman]

I don't think I'd move Vasquez. Atlanta could just be his time and place. He's always had the ability to do what he's doing now. He's at a good age playing in a fair park in a division of fair parks. I just like his chances of continuing.

What I would do is figure out a way to swap in Hudson for Lowe this winter. If they can trade Lowe with a $3mil subsidy and then either renew Hudson for 2010 or buy him out then resign him to a 2 year, 11 mil/yr deal it would be a wash on payroll. If Lowe finishes strong he would be able to net a pretty decent player if the Braves buy his salary down to 12 mil/year. That leaves a good rotation with Vasquez, Jurrjens, Hanson, Hudson and Kawakami. I think anyone of those first 4 could match up with any team's ace next year.

Not sure what Lowe would fetch. Maybe just for an example, something like Juan Rivera from the Angels. Braves wouldn't necessarily have to pay out money in that trade. So if all went according to plan they would essentially be getting Hudson and Rivera for Lowe and it would only cost about an extra mil or two. To me in that deal, Rivera is gravy.

One RH power guy I'd love to see the Braves do a prospect swap on is Kyle Blanks the big 1b from San Diego. If the Padres somehow decide to save face with their fans and re-up Gonzalez they'll need to move Blanks for an equally impressive prospect at any posit besides 1b. Maybe a bulk deal with Cody Johnson and a decent wing for Blanks. Blanks is a performance risk but the guy has such a sweet swing, nice eye and huge power potential in that 6'8", 280lb frame. I think they'll deal Gonzalez this winter instead but if they up Gonzalez I'd pounce on Blanks if I was Wren.

[KB 34]

Question for you Gman, how does Vazquez being a free agent after next season play into all this? From a baseball perspective I don't want to see him dealt but I'm really wondering about how much someone would trade for him, and if that would improve a good, really close to major league ready starting pitcher.

As much as I like dealing Lowe to keep Hudson I can't imagine someone taking on Lowe's deal even if the Braves throw in $5 million like I'm willing to do. He hasn't been a $15 million pitcher this season and there are 3 more at that money after it which don't look too good right now.

[Wahoo]

I'd love to see us unload Derek Lowe, but it won't happen. At this point, I want to get rid of him at some point prior to the end of his deal, and all I can hope for is that he puts superb numbers at the beginning of next year, and maybe we move him at next year's trade deadline.

[Gman]

Question for you Gman, how does Vazquez being a free agent after next season play into all this? From a baseball perspective I don't want to see him dealt but I'm really wondering about how much someone would trade for him, and if that would improve a good, really close to major league ready starting pitcher.

As much as I like dealing Lowe to keep Hudson I can't imagine someone taking on Lowe's deal even if the Braves throw in $5 million like I'm willing to do. He hasn't been a $15 million pitcher this season and there are 3 more at that money after it which don't look too good right now.

Re: Vazquez being an FA after 2010 doesn't really matter to me just yet. The only thing that matters to me with Vazquez is, how will he perform in big games down the stretch this year? It's the one bugaboo that's followed him in his career and for good reason. His late season and post season history is not good. If he can finally exorcize that demon this year I would absolutely want to keep him for 2010 and beyond. He's got everything else he needs to be a perennial cy young for the next few years. He's got the right manager and the right park to make it happen this year. I''m thinking he'll do it. If he does, I bet 2009 won't be anything close to his best year. If he doesn't his value is gonna drop alot this winter to the Braves or to any other team.

RE: Lowe having no trade value. If he keeps this up for the rest of the year you'd be right. But he's coming off 4 straight straight years of sub 1.3 whip sub 4.00 era seasons. It's more likely that he'll become one of our better arms down the stretch than to continue in his current fashion. I wouldn't put a value on him just yet.

[warefreak]

With everybody having valid points on keeping him or trading him I think the approach should be:

Attempt to give Vasquez an extension (at least signed through 2012 or longer) and if he refuses to discuss an extension then we trade him for immediate needs and prospects.