SI.com – MLB – Marlins meet with Vegas officials about move – Thursday December 9, 2004 3:07PM
But if it did, I know one thing: Braves players would be dead set against realigning the Marlins out of the East.
47 Comments
Advertisement
Use code “Journal” for a 5% discount.
I would even protest the realignment. The Braves seem to own the Marlins no matter how young and dangerous their roster becomes.
Holy cow!
The guy who rebuilt the $6 Millon Man is now the mayor of Vegas?
Ohhh… GOODMAN. Never mind.
It’s been far too long since I posted. AJC has a story (which ran on some wires) that the Braves are considering trading for Tim Hudson …
ah, but there’s a catch …
Oakland wants Dan Meyer
and …
wait for it …
Marcus …
Giles
It’s been even longer since you read a thread….
Yes, it’s true. It’s all over the sports pages. I would hate to give up Giles or Meyers, but these guys know what they are doing, and Hudson was 12-6 with an ERA of 3.30 last year. In the NL, that translates into 20-8 with an ERA under 3.00.
We need a stopper, and he fits the bill. We can’t get him for free, so you gotta do what you gotta do. Hudson played for Auburn and has many records there and with the number of Auburn alumni in Atlanta, it might fill a few more seats.
Meyer + Giles would probably be worth more wins for the Braves next year than Hudson + Nick Green or whatever other stiff they run out there. Let’s hope they don’t do this. If Billy Beane wants two players that are cheap for a free agent that is going to bolt, you DON’T DO IT.
Until last year, the Braves traditionally had trouble with the Marlins, especially in Miami. I wouldn’t mind seeing them leave.
The Tim Hudson-Marcus Giles deal only makes sense to me if you assume that the Braves think they can sign Hudson to an extension at a reasonable price. Green would be a lot cheaper than Giles and they would save additional money by either letting Smoltz leave next year or trying to bring him back for substantially less money. This might give them the ability to sign Furcal to an extension. Of course, next year, Hampton’s full contract kicks in and he is essentially untradeable.
Hudson’s a terrific pitcher but it seems like a lot to give up and where would the Braves get any offense without Giles?
Oakland fans seem to think we have an inside track to resign Huddy, as he lives in Florida and, as mentioned, went to Auburn. Smoltz’s money comes off the books next year, right? That could give us a window. But why trade for him when we could just sign him next year?
But why trade for him when we could just sign him next year?
That’s what I think, too. I’d love to see what Meyer can do before we ditch him along with so many other recent pitching prospects. And if Hudson wants to come here in 2006 then we can talk. I think we can be okay in the meantime — we’ve lost a couple of pitchers, but remember that we had the best ERA in the NL last year, so it’s not like the cupboard is bare.
But the real issue here is Giles, and I’d like to put the numbers aside for a moment. From a marketing/turnstiles perspective, I think trading him would be, if not disastrous, at least depressive. You can find a range of opinion on most other Braves players, but I don’t know ANYONE who doesn’t love to watch Giles play. Everybody loves him, and it’s not because he’s a middle infielder who can post a 900 OPS. It’s because he’s a little guy who’s worked his ass off to succeed, and who plays with conspicuous effort and joy. Kids can identify with him, and he’s a likeable goofball in the Red Sox “Band of Idiots” sense.
To me, a GM has two goals. 1) Build a team that can compete, and 2) build a team fans want to root for. Right now, the Braves have two players, Smoltz and Giles, who most everyone can agree personify the achievement of both goals. My personal list is longer, and yours probably is as well, but I think nearly everyone’s list contains those two names. It would be a damn shame to get rid of either, and I hope we don’t.
The problem with waiting until next year to sign Hudson is that then he won’t be able to pitch for us this year. If the Braves have him for a year, they’ll have a better shot at signing him long-term than if he goes on the open market. I’d trade Giles and a prospect for him. I don’t dislike Giles, but he’s never been one of my favorites.
If the Braves have him for a year, they’ll have a better shot at signing him long-term than if he goes on the open market.
Unfortunately, this logic didn’t work with J.D. Drew, despite the similar prodigal son angle. Pursestrings win out over heartstrings most every time.
Well, is Boras Hudson’s agent too? I wasn’t thinking about the heartstrings angle so much as the fact that the Braves would have the exclusive right to negotiate for a year. Granted, that didn’t work for Drew either. I wouldn’t trade Giles unless they are willing to pay for Hudson long-term.
Russ to AZ for 3 years, $27M.
The DBacks are on DCrack. That’s $72M for a 2nd or 3rd starter + an oft-injured third baseman. Wow.
If JS knows he can get Polanco, I would trade Giles for Hudson straight up. But I don’t like including Meyer. In fact, that might be what’s holding up this deal. Personally, I’d rather have Mulder, who’s a lefty and we’d have for two years.
If we could get an extension worked out with Hudson, and if we could get Placido, then I’d be behind a Giles & Meyer for Hudson trade. The Braves farm system has, from what I’ve read, a pretty solid core of arms in it, so losing Meyer wouldn’t break the bank.
But more to the point, I’ll pull a number out of the air and say that they’re are no more than 10 or 12 legitimate aces in baseball, and fewer than that have had as clean a bill of health as Hudson has had (last year’s injuries included). I think giving up a pitching prospect, even a top prospect, shouldn’t be a deal-breaker for the Braves. If they’re willing to do Giles for Hudson, then they should be willing to package “a Meyer’s” with him.
Rob Neyer always says there’s no such thing as a pitching prospect, meaning, I suppose, that until someone actually shows they can produce in the big leagues, you can’t count on him. My feeling is that as long as you have a lot of arms in the system, the odds are against any particular one becoming a star. The Braves have traded a bunch of pitching prospects over the years and the only one that I can recall really breaking out is Jason Schmidt and he did that several years after he was traded. Odalis Perez is pretty good, but he was certainly not irreplaceable. You know Hudson is a dominant pitcher; you are only hoping that Meyer would be one. So that doesn’t bother me as much as Giles.
Peter Gammons just said on Sportscenter that the Braves wont trade Giles. Great news.
Mathew F. I just logged on to post the same news, but you beat me to it :P. I breathed a sigh of relief, hopefully Gammon’s is right about this.
The Ortiz deal is actually 4 years/$33m. Which is, to my mind, pretty crazy indeed.
Ortiz at $11 million a year is insane. He has numbers that are similar to the post-Braves Maddux, who makes only $8 million. I honestly don’t think Ortiz is worth more than about $6 million. Thank goodness we are not paying him.
Anyone who resists the trade for Hudson doesn’t really understand the Braves’ situation or the landscape of Baseball. I’ll keep this simple…when the Braves dominated in the early and mid-nineties, the hitting was unimpressive. Terry Pendleton, David Justice, Otis Nixon, and Mark Lemke (during the playoffs) were the only major offensive threats, and they were never unstoppable. The Jones Boys, Estrada, Furcal, and LaRoche are all set for big years. Rememeber the way Andruw, Furcal, and Adam simply broke out against a pretty good Astros staff. The reason the Braves used to go deeper in to the playoffs was the unstoppable rotation. I say forfeit any attempts to bolster the lineup and rebuild the rotation. The Braves will never sniff the World Series (we’ll always make the playoffs) without a dangerous rotation. Trade Giles and Meyer for Huddy, JS! Giles is currently my favorite Braves player, aside from Smoltz of course, but I want the Braves back on top. Mediocre pitching, like we had last year in the playoffs, won’t get us anywhere. The Braves still had the season-best Team ERA, but the pitchers came up short in the NLDS. Wright was completely dissappointing in the playoffs, and after I’ve had time to get over losing him, JS was right to hold off on shelling out money to an inconsistent pitcher. Hudson has proved his worth for 4 or 5 seasons now, trade whoever to get this guy.
If you don’t agree with my argument for a stong rotation, just look at the Cards team from last year. THE best lineup in Baseball failed on the biggest stage because of the THE best staff in Baseball. It’s the same reason Cleveland never won a title in the 1990s and is the main reason the Yankees haven’t one since 2000. The Yankees can improve their lineup every offseason all the want, even sign Wright, but until the pitching really comes no title will follow. They didn’t finish off the Sox, because Boston’s staff caught fire. The last team to win, in say 10 years, without a GREAT staff was the Angels. They won it with a bullpen…and it helped that the Giants staff also wasn’t that dominant. JS needs to stop trying to field a sexy longball lineup and get the Braves two aces.
Dear Raoul,
Thanks for letting me know that I really don’t understand the Braves. I am so appreciative of the fact that you have showed up to enlighten all of us with your superior intellect.
Come on now, JC, man does have a point. He’s not shy to give it, but he does nonetheless. I think the majority opinion about something nobody really knows for sure about, succeeding in the postseason, is that two bonafide aces is your best bet at having a shot in the playoffs. I think we can all agree, from Maddux and Glavine to Johnson and Schilling to Jack Morris and Their Bullpen, that two aces could get you to the promise land. Teams like Atlanta and St. Louis built their teams around their offenses this year, and it was the team with great pitching that won out.
I think if we were to trade for Hudson, it will be contingent on signing him to an extension. If they do it now, they can get him for much less than he will go on the open market. The way salaries are starting to move back up, he could be had for $9-10 million/year for 3 years vs. $15/year after next year. We need a dominate pitcher or two to make it through the playoffs. With the exception of the offensive explosion in the Angels/Giants World Series, most of the more recent World Series champs have won with pitching (and clutch hitting, but we can’t have everything with).
If we picked up Palonco, then we’d get a good defensive replacement. Chipper will be back to 100% next year, LaRoche showed he can play at the ML level, and Marrero/Thomas will hold their own. I think the offense is going to be fine. You don’t have to be the 2003 Braves to win games. You have to be more like the 1995 Braves (pitching) to go far in the playoffs.
An ace for a year is not worth it. We don’t have the other pieces that would take us to a championship. The only way we’ll be able to do it with our budget constraints is to find an ace in the farm or make sensible trades that give us strengths we can build on.
I wonder if Giles being hurt the last 3 years has anything to do with the Braves maybe shopping him?But, to trade him you would need more than a 1 year pitcher. Still think the Braves would like to talk with the Yankees about Javier.
I didn’t say anyone lacked intellect. In fact, I said nothing to anyone directly at all. I just happen to think that Braves fans who stress hitting and the lineup aren’t seeing the real flaws in the club. I am entitled to my baseball opinions and am free to argue them whenever, especially on a Braves blog. JC, you never posted on this thread before my comment was posted, so how could I be attacking your intellect? I also have no idea who you are, so to attack your intellect would be a waste of both our time. I will continue to make arguments that sometimes go against common ideas surrounding the Braves. I will also continue to not attack anyone personally.
I concur with the argument that Hudson MUST resign if we trade for him. We didn’t lose much on the Drew rental, but if we trade Giles and Capellan/Meyer for Hudson, we can’t lose the assets after one season.
Tom,
You might be on to something with Javier Vasquez. Bobby and Leo would love to mold this young talent into a classic Braves ace. Now that the Braves are running out of ways to fill out the rotation, Vasquez could become a reality. What do you think we would have to part with to get him? And do you think Vasquez really has the stuff that could make him that ace? It would be an interesting project to explore, so long as we don’t part with much to get him.
Raoul,
I’ve got no problem with anyone’s opinion, but this is the part of your post that really ticked me off.
Anyone who resists the trade for Hudson doesn’t really understand the Braves’ situation or the landscape of Baseball. I’ll keep this simple…
That’s more than just expressing your opinion. It’s inferring that those who don’t share your opinon knows less about the Braves and baseball than you. This site is full of regulars (funny, I’ve never noticed you here before) with many different opinions. All have a vast knowledge of the Braves. For you to appear to “make it simple” for those of us who have differing opinions is just rude. I admit my response was a bit harsh, but I don’t respond well to being patronized by someone making a tired old point that many here disagree with. If I want to read arrogant and rude opinions stated as fact, I’ll go read Bill Shanks.
JC,
It’s fine if you diasgree with the pitching-first approach. I happen to think you are gravely mistaken about the Braves and Baseball if you emphasize hitting. And I will not refrain from letting you know that I think that. I do think your opposite position is quite inferior to my own and there is absolutely nothing wrong or arrogant about that. If you disagree with my position, I happen to think you are missing the boat. To me, that is not arrogance but the simple possession of an idea or opinion. You seem threathened by the fact that I have conifdence in my arguments. I mean, I’m not one (there are others like you too) to copy and past citations from other people’s postings. If anyone is going out of there way to prove another wrong, it is clearly you. Just keep to yourself if my ideas threaten you, I don’t want to waste anymore time with this dead issue.
Hopefully the winter meetings will produce some roster changes, so we can get back to the discussion of baseball…
I’m not one (there are others like you too) to copy and past citations from other people’s postings.
Thanks for identifying yourself as an argument vulture, Sansho. I didn’t want to make any personal attacks in my posting, as it would have compromised the integrity of myargument. Keep reading my posts, you might just find some material to attack.
Screw it, I’m coming after you both. I won’t be made to feel like a jerk (by Sansho and JC) because I argue better than both of you. If you guys are correct about not pursuing an ace for the Braves staff this year, where is the evidence to bolster your claims? Have the Braves made it back to the WS since the decline of the former aces like Glavine, Maddux, and Smoltz? The answer is obviously a big NO. The Braves haven’t made it past the NLDS since the two ACES of Arizona worked our lineup in the 2001 NLCS. Sansho, you claim the farm system may produce some aces. Capellan is far from even being a viable ML pitcher, let alone a staff ace. I’ve yet to see Meyer pitch, but if you recall the Braves glory days, it took three Cy Young-caliber pitchers to make it to the promised land. You also cite that the Braves had the best team ERA last year, which I agree was an impressive achievement, but how well did it serve us in the playoffs? Wright, Ortiz, Thomson (because he hardly pitched), and Byrd were completely unimpressive. Hampton and Smoltz looked like the only Braves pitchers able to get Astros hitters out. Remember how the Astros set a record for the most runs in an NLDS? Now that’s bad pitching, and coming from a club that won a World Series with pitching. Think back to 1995 World Series Game 6: Glavine pitches 8 shutout innings in route to a 1-0 victory for the Braves. Yeah it would have been nice to have more Braves hitting in that game, but what brought our club to glory? Hitting or Pitching? Clearly, it was the pitching. We’ve played in an NLDS every year since its conception and never was our staff more hittable than in this past NLDS. I?m willing to concede that the Braves could win with two aces and a better lineup than the ones we had in the 1990s, but that?s about it. Both of you should keep arguing that we don’t need to pursue a staff ace, you have that right. Just don’t feel threatened when you see that my arguments are far more substantiated than your own.
To elaborate on Raoul discussing how the Braves had the best team ERA last year, it was either here or The Hardball Times that concluded that a deep, solid pitching staff does not have nearly as much impact as a pitching staff with its dominance concentrated on 3-5 pitchers. This season, the Braves and the Cardinals proved that point very well. The Braves and Cards went 1-2 in team ERA last year, and that didn’t exactly get them a title. Boston, on the other hand, had four pitchers who dominated (Lowe, Schilling, Foulke and Embree) and, along with above-average hitting (.827 team OPS in the postseason), they were able to win. In the regular season, a depth of good pitchers can help you lead the league in team ERA. In the postseason, it’s a core of dominant pitchers that is more important.
Also, take a look at the Twins. They led the AL in team ERA, but who cares? They had The Official Pitcher of Aaron’s Baseball Blog blowing the Yankees away, but Radke and Silva were terrible, and their middle relief, which was so strong during the regular season with the depth of Crain, Rincon, Romero and Balfour, couldn’t get their dominant closer the ball with the lead. If Radke or Silva could have gotten the job done, they wouldn’t have had to start their dominant pitcher Santana on three days rest, he wouldn’t have only gone 5 innings, and they may have had a shot. Oh, but they lead the AL in team ERA…
OK, I admit I was yanking your chain with the previous post. It just struck me funny at the time–I plead too much coffee this morning. The reason I tend to cut and paste is I think it provides continuity to the discussion, and ensures that I don’t twist the words of others if I disagree (as opposed to your statement that I think we have some aces in the system, a statement I never made). It’s also helpful if I want to agree and expound on someone else’s point (see above).
Anyway, enough talking about talking. Obviously there are merits to the trade — it would be foolish to pretend otherwise. It’s my belief that having Marcus for the next few seasons at an affordable salary is more consistent with our stated organizational philosophy (that we don’t have unlimited funds). Oakland has succeeded despite their financial constraints by systematically ridding themselves of players once they reach the point that they can demand big bucks for contracts that reach into their mid-30s. Paying a premium for declining performance is the surest way to mediocrity — witness the Baltimore Orioles and the Arizona D’Backs. And keep in mind that this is what we would hope to do with Hudson. The alternative would be giving up a young affordable All-Star 2B and a young pitcher of some promise for a one-year rental (albeit a good one). I don’t think it’s a wise use of our available resources.
Obtaining an elite player from age 29 into their mid 30s is worth any extra money it costs. After all, that age range is often referred to as a player’s “prime.” Hudson has many accomplishments up to age 29, and he is going to get nasty for the next few years. On top of that, he will pitch in the NL East (Thinks Mets, inconsistent Phillies, the new Nationals) and is not simply a power pitcher. His has little injury history and his arm should be awesome for 4-5 years. Consider all the overpaying we do for Chipper, Andruw, and Smoltz. Making some room for Hudson (and without (Giles, Drew, or possibly Wright this is a possibility) is a great idea. Don’t get me into Beane’s “Money Ball” system, for it’s a system that makes a small team competetive. The Braves need to make the step from a competetive team to a title contender. We have the franchise veterans and cornerstones we need, just add the dynamic Hudson and this team will have great potential. With the Hudson trade becoming less and less of a reality, though, I’m not very optomistic. Regardless, I am still waiting for an plausible argument against going all out for a staff ace…
Also… If we follow Billy Beane and discard Giles in a couple of years before his prime, where would that leave us? With a couple of years of decent hitting, bad pitching, and no playoff appearances, that’s where. Seriously, if the Braves didn’t milk solid years out of Thomson and Wright, this team wouldn’t have made the playoffs. Ortiz and Hampton had REALLY cold stretches. Byrd and Ramirez couldn’t pitch full seasons. I grow tired of saying we need an ace, but someone has yet to prove to me otherwise. I value the opinions of the all Braves fans out there, I just happen to disagree with most of them.
Now that the bad blood has cleared, we have a nice debate going. A debate fueled by the fundamental opposition of hitting and pitching. This is healthy, Braves fans. I only hope JS’s thought process is this deliberate and varied. I’m sorry if I came across arrogant to any Braves fan out there, I’m just committed to the idea of an ace. I still want to argue this point to its death, though…
I believe that if the Braves pursue a staff ace, it should be a power pitcher. Most of the most successfull postseason pitchers (John Smoltz, Curt Schilling, Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax, etc.) were power pitchers, and even Maddux and Glavine, two of the best control pitchers ever, are barely above .500 in the postseason. Putting Smoltz in the rotation would certainly help that, but I personally would much rather they get a young guy with power (I’d favor Clement) than a control pitcher, especially if they have to give up a good hitter and prospect for him.
I don’t know why you want to make this an argument about pitching versus hitting. I don’t think anyone would argue that getting a young, dominant ace for several years would be anything but great for the organization, even if it meant unloading Giles. Fans love Giles, but they love great pitching as well. The problem lies in the economics. Hudson is going to be a free agent, and there is very little chance that we could resign him, given our budget constraints. Even if they didn’t exist and we could resign him, why not wait for free agency and get him for *nothing*, keeping Giles at the same time?
Waiting to sign Hudson next year, or any other ace, says to me another NLDS loss. That’s why you take the risk. Plus, I don’t think resigning Hudson is out of the Braves’ budget. If JS refrains from throwing money at the outfield “problem” and trades Giles, we’ll have room. Giles will be up for a huge pay-raise in the next couple of years, not sure exactly when, so why not trade him when we have the prospects to at least make a respectabe attempt at replacing his numbers? Waiting to fix the rotation problem, means waiting to get out of the NLDS. Should Wright come back, I might be more inclined to scrapping a trade for an ace. That remains a GIGANTIC question mark, though.
I share the concern that Hudson could be signed to a long-term Atlanta deal at all. This complicates the situation immensely…