User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1777 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Does this mean Wake is cooked? Buc to Texas? Masterson to Az?
Hopefully there wasn't a bonus clause based on how many terrorists he disarmed. That would really bankrupt the franchise.
This is how it works:
Byung-Hyung Kim makes Derek Lowe look like Jack Bauer
Derek Lowe makes Curt Schilling look like Jack Bauer
And John Smoltz makes Curt Schilling look like a pX$$y
Pedro is still Pedro though
Most NON-BOGUS!
Most TRIUMPHANT!!
Most EXCELLENT!!!
My name is John Andrew Smoltz, and we are the wild idiots!!!!
More like he picked the wrong day to stop being a great baseball player.
1) Sad for the Braves. The old-fashioned romantic in me thought it would have been nice if just one of the Big 3 would have spent his whole career in their uni. After 3400 IP, it almost happened.
2) Competitively, it certainly doesn't weaken them vis-a-vis the 2008 Braves. Obviously, they didn't get much out of him that they're going to miss. But it may well weaken them compared to what they might have been; only time will tell.
3) This surely would eliminate whatever slim hopes that Boras has to get the Sox involved in bidding for Lowe. Of course, those hopes were already pretty much dead.
4) They're planning to sign him as a starter??? I just don't know if his arm is likely to be able to hold up to 80-100 pitches a game. Just guessing here, but I think Smoltz's odds of holding up as a reliever for a full year probably would be a bit better.
Signing Andruw Jones will help kick-start the healing process.
Good work.
My money is on Smoltz never throwing a pitch for Boston. Thus, he still retires a life-long Brave.
Easiest five million ever made! Shilling must be wondering why the Red Sox isn't handing him another $5 million to blog about his life.
I agree. But...still...gut punch, man. Gut punch.
Well, I just have my doubts about anyone that is 41 years old coming back from shoulder surgery so fast as to contribute at the major league level in 12 months.
Now if Smoltz is back and productive, I sure hope Kelvim Escobar has the same kind of luck!
The Sox signed an aging pitcher with shoulder problems and experience in the rotation and the bullpen, he never pitched, and they came very close to winning a pennant. That was clearly a crucial part of last season's success which the team wants to replicate as precisely as possible.
The more I look at this - the more crazy it becomes. That group of guys is really closer to three starters and three question marks. Counting on Wakes, Penny and Smoltz in 2009 to fill out a rotation is not terribly comforting if I'm a Sox fan. Of course, Masterson seems like the goods, so maybe Penny and Smoltz become high-priced cheerleaders.
No kidding, Walt. That is a lot of scratch for a big question mark.
Well, Tex got a no-trade clause from the Yanks as well, not to mention his wife's leash on him.
So if a middle-case scenario is 100 quality innings and then an injury, I think I'd take the deal. They've got rotation depth, but some all-star quality pitching would really help, even if it's only part of the year. Worst case scenario is that he's totally useless and you're out 5 million. Which would be bad, of course, but doesn't seem like it would seriously constrain other necessary moves. Best case scenario: he repeats his 2007 and they win the World Series.
How is a $5.5M flier on an all-time great who's NEVER pitched poorly analogous to spending $180M on a position the Sox have filled now and for the foreseeable future?
Without, you know, doing the research, I would bet Smoltz has had the best age 38-41 seasons a pitcher's ever had, even accounting for the 28 innings he pitched last year. Since returning to the rotation, he's put up a 3.20 ERA in 695 innings.
Smoltz is going to be either really good or not pitching. The Red Sox can afford to find out which it is.
Smoltz has made it abundantly clear that he did not like being a reliever as much as he likes being a starter, and in fact thinks that being a starter is easier on his arm.
Pete Alexander?
Randy Johnson, age 38-41 (including only half a mediocre season at 39): 845.3 innings, 3.06 ERA, 960 K, 189 BB.
Now, the big question is: What in the hell are the Braves doing? Is Frank asleep? Is he still pouting about having Furcal "stolen"? Has he just given up? I don't get it. If John wants to pitch for a contender, why not sign the same deal with Atlanta with the understanding that if the Braves are out of it (which they will be) in July, he will be traded? I mean doesn't Atlanta have buckets of cast to spend this offseason?
Bad times for Braves fans. Pete retired. Skip dead. TBS gone. Smoltz a Red Sock.
True. it's a travesty that the longest continually operating MLB franchise can boast only Rick Camp, Bruce Benedict, and Biff Pocoroba as its best "entire career" players. Only the Blue jays, Rangers, and the 90's expansion teams have worse candidates. I really thought they had finally gotten over the hump with Smoltz.
Wow. I'm stumped when trying to think of an Oakland A who spent an entire career with the team. Mike Norris? Is he the best we have? I might have to dig into this today. I'm sure it will be depressing.
What is this based on? Arbitration awards aren't guaranteed, but I'm pretty sure that all other major league contracts are. Rosenthal might not specifically say that this is guaranteed, but other reports are calling the $5.5M guaranteed.
Anyway, if the Red Sox get a dozen starts each from Smoltz, Penny and Wakefield, they will have spent around $15M for the equivalent of one very good #3 starter without having to make a long-term commitment. That seems like a much better strategy than paying one guy $15M.
And now I can't even wear my Smoltz shirt for a year or two either.
This is the worst offseason ever. Worse than '02-'03, even.
Beckett
Matsuzaka
Lester
Penny
Smoltz
Wakefield
Buchholz
Masterson
Bowden
is a nice cadre of pitching depth, even if Smoltz may not pitch and Penny, well, who knows.
If each guy is only healthy enough to make a dozen starts, isn't it a lot more likely that those starts will be of lower quality than a #3 starter?
With that said...
Not to keep on raining on the Braves, but what happens to Chipper Jones at the end of the year? Will the Braves let him walk?
That depends on Jordan Schafer, Tommy Hanson, Derek Lowe and (perhaps) Jake Peavy. Smoltz leaving is an emotional blow to the franchise, certainly. He, more than anyone, was the face of the team post-Glavine. He and Chipper were the last player connections to the '95 WS team and Smoltz was the last player connection to the now-mythical '91 Cinderella story. Smoltz leaving is a final blow to anyone still operating under the misconception that the 2009 Braves were really part of the '91/'95 lineage in anything but name. But from a practical standpoint, it's not that big of a deal. Atlanta has operated all off-season on the assumption that Smoltz and Glavine were nice-to-haves but not must-haves, due to their age and health. It's more of an emotional blow to see Smoltz go somewhere else, but pragmatically it's the same as if he never came off the DL, which was the rational assumption all winter anyway. (Now, if he's pitching well in October it will hurt a lot more, but that will still be an emotional rather than rational response.)
Chipper now becomes the final leg of the storied history. We all know what he brings and what he leaves behind. When he's healthy, he's one of the five best everyday players in baseball. When he's not, he's Martin Prado. If Atlanta brings in Lowe and an outfielder not named Andruw, if Hanson continues to impress and establishes himself as a top of the rotation kind of guy in 2009, if Jordan Schafer wraps up his minor league seasoning and takes his expected spot in the OF in Atlanta, then Chipper is likely to re-sign in 2010. If some number of those things don't occur, if Atlanta misses on Lowe again (or can't get Peavy again) or the next wave prospects don't project to impact and compete at the ML level in 2010 then Chipper is just as likely to DH somewhere with a shot to get him another ring. While he's a limited starter in the NL due to his difficulties fielding 3B regularly, Chipper Jones as a DH would be a force for two or three more years. The guy can simply mash at the plate. And it's not hard to imagine a path where he joins Smoltz in Boston as a counter-weight to Tiexiera in NY, next year.
If that happens, Atlanta will be in complete tear-down/rebulid mode. They don't have anyone with the presence of Chipper to anchor the lineup and none of their primary prospects projects to do so. Heyward, maybe, in 2011 or 2012. But no one before then, IMHO.
It'd be sadder if he hadn't been drafted, signed, and developed by the Tigers.
Agreed. Not to mention losing out on Furcal, and still being stuck with Francoeur.
Sniff
Please. Drafted? Yes. Signed? Yes. Developed? No. Smoltz spent all of one year in Detroit's organization. He was acquired by Atlanta out of AA. He was no more "developed" by the Tigers than was Gorkys Hernandez. Greg Maddux was drafted, signed and developed by the Cubs, then acquired by the Braves. John Smoltz was developed by the Braves.
Have I stopped being a Braves fan? Makes all that suffering in the 70s and 80s sort of meaningless.
Sure, Chris. Whatever you say. Everyone has the money, it's just that the teams in the mega-markets are owned by better, more competitive people. That fits your preferred world view so that's what you *choose* to believe. Outside of your bubble, it doesn't really work that way. The Braves are constrained by an operational budget in ways that the Red Sox, Yankees, Mets, Dodgers and Angels are not. And seriously, you're too smart not to recognize that. This isn't even a case where you can say "well, the mid-market teams could/should spend on the big names instead of the Gil Meches of the world" (to rehash a recent argument from the site.) This is categorically where the large markets have an unequal advantage in free agency. The Red Sox can afford to take $5.5 million flier on John Smoltz' shoulder holding together. The Atlanta Braves can not. Insomuch as the Atlanta Braves are NOT a small-market team, but rather a mid-market team, this should exemplify the basic market inequity for you. The problem is even worse for the Kansas Cities and the Tampa Bays. But hey, if you prefer to plug your ears, cover your eyes and sing LALALA until the cows come home, that's your call. You should be smarter than that, but then again, you have some funny laundry that often colors your thoughts...
Now if sign Lowe, I suppose the case could be made that they went between Smoltz and Lowe, and choose Lowe, given the limited budget. But if they sit on their cash, it's hard to argue market inequality was the issue, then it was just Atlanta making a choice not to spend the dollars.
Or it's a matter of Atlanta not being able to get someone to take that money, as we've seen happening with Milwaukee (in the Dunn and Lowe conversations so far).
Were they even outbid on Furcal? I was of the impression that (at least according to Wren) that LA just matched the offer sheet that Atlanta passed to Furcal's agent.
Maybe. Or maybe they're each healthy enough to pitch well for a couple of months at different times (that would admittedly be quite fortunate). Or maybe we differ on the definition of the quality of a #3 starter. So maybe the combined performance won't add up to what Wakefield did last year, or what Matt Garza gave the Rays. But I think most teams, contenders included, would be pretty happy with 210 league average starting pitching innings from the guy in the middle of their rotation.
Well, obviously I don't think so. The Braves have money to spend. There is no question about that. They entered this off-season with about $40 million to spend, in fact. That's because they had a LOT of players coming off the books (including Smoltz.) This doesn't change the fact that they ARE constrained by an operational budget and that budget IS smaller than the operational budgets of the mega-market teams. Atlanta wanted to acquire two top-of-the-rotation starters, an offensive minded OF and bring back Smoltz or Glavine on an incentive deal. They have to date brought in one of the starters - Javy Vasquez by trade - and spectacularly failed to bring in the other options they were pursuing - Peavy and Burnett. They have also spectacularly failed to address the outfield - the Furcal signing meant to move Kelly Johnson back to left field.
None of this addresses the basic difference in what the Red Sox vs the Braves could guarantee Smoltz. The Braves, being constrained to a $92 million budget, couldn't afford to sink $5.5-10 mil in Smoltz's shoulder. It was a risk they couldn't afford to take because they couldn't spend OVER that risk if it failed. The Red Sox CAN spend over that risk. $5.5 mil to Smoltz is a flier to them, a small-wager bet on his being effective in the second half and perhaps the playoffs. They can afford that bet, because they can afford to lose that bet. The Braves can't. It's that simple.
The Braves have been making offers for players that involved a lot more than $5.5M. They may not have landed anyone but the offers indicate Atlanta had the money to sign Smoltz if they thought he'd help. Looks like they concluded he wouldn't.
"And seriously, you're too smart not to recognize that."
The Yankees have signed Teixeira, Sabathia, and Burnett, so far. They've hardly concentrated on signing one player this offseason.
EDIT: And LA, with Furcal and the Manny negotiations. And Boston, who were involved in both the Tagawa and Teixeira negotiations (as well as Smoltz, Penny, Baldelli, and so on). None of these teams were focused on only a single free agent.
It's only that simple if they spend that money in a lower risk way. It seems to me that it's a little bit different if they don't spend the money at all.
I would suggest, as politely as I know how, that you should consider the fact that contracts and potential contracts are not, in fact, solitary, stand-alone house, but pieces of a larger edifice. If they don't fit together, they don't work. The Braves tried to (over)spend on Burnett because he's a top-tier player who would make the team competitive for the next few years. He's one of the "A class" free agents that mid- and small-market teams are *supposed* to bid on per this site's conventional wisdom. Smoltz is a 42 year old with a shoulder held together by string cheese. He's the sort of mid- to low-tier FA the mid- and small-market teams are supposed to avoid, again, per conventional wisdom 'round here. The fact that the Braves *shouldn't* spend 5-10 mil on the chance of Smoltz being healthy while the Red Sox *should* sort of proves my larger point.
Obviously different teams work under different constraints. But the idea that the Red Sox can merrily afford to devote 4.25% to a "flier" but the Braves can't devote a marginally higher fraction of theirs to it is pretty silly.
No. Mike Hampton happens. And if you don't think that constrains the potential moves made down the stretch, you're some sort of hillbilly from North Carolina with gauche colored jersies where your thinking brain should be.
The Braves are a large market team; something like 8th largest MSA and a dominant positiona across the south.
The difference is they have corporate ownership that wants to recognize a healthy annual profit and cash flow from their assets, while the Yankees/Red Sox/Mets/Angels etc. have private ownership that can forego operating profits to build asset values.
There is a reason the Yankees sucked when owned by CBS. Corporate ownership just doesn't work for sports teams.
Um, the Braves WANT to spend the money they have. They've been trying to do that all winter long. They want to bring in Jake Peavy and his contract. They want(ed) to overpay AJ Burnett. They wanted to re-sign Furcal. That they haven't closed the deal on the multiple free agents they've been chasing doesn't mean they're not trying to spend the money they have.
And none of that in any way whatsoever impacts the base amount of money they have to spend. If the Braves HAD acquired Peavy and signed Furcal they would STILL be constrained by a $92 million operational budget. And the Red Sox would STILL not be so constrained. Maybe Smoltz takes less to stay in Atlanta thinking he has an equal shot at one more glory run. Maybe he doesn't. Either way, Boston still has an advantage in the market as they still have MORE MONEY TO SPEND. Period. End of story.
No, the Braves are a mid-market team. That they're not small doesn't make them large. The difference between the Atlanta MSA and the MSAs of the northeastern corridor and souther California is significant. There are only a few "large markets" in the country. The mega-markets of NY and Boston, LA and Chicago. Being 8th doesn't mean you're in the same bracket as 1st and 2nd. It means your larger than 9th.
The Braves' accounting payroll last year started at $94M, and they wound up at $88M after shaving payroll at the deadline. For accounting purposes, they've treated Hampton's contract differently than their pay schedule indicates.
Yes, a trend that the Braves didn't get a player they would have liked to have. But the reasons were different. I believe largely, there are 4 reasons why players sign different places and teams bids differ.
1) The value of a marginal win varies between teams.
2) Players have preferences to play somewhere else.
3) Players add different amounts of marginal wins to each team due to differing replacement levels.
4) Teams have a signifigant differential in the projections.
In my opinion: Furcal was 2, Smoltz was 1. Burnett was a combination of 3 and 4.
Nope. You're failing to budget the Mike Hampton contract across all years, as the Braves did, and you're failing to account for half of Tiexiera's contract falling to the Angels. The Braves' payroll last year was +/- $90m.
I would respond, as politely as I know how, that I understand all of that. I was actually sincerely interested in why you personally think that the 5 year $80M risk is a wise one and the 1 year $5.5M risk is not. I didn't want to paint you with the broad brush of "this site's conventional wisdom." You've answered that question now -- you think Burnett is less of a risk than a lot of other people do. Thanks.
I would also suggest, as politely as I know how, that when one goes to all this trouble of saying that they're being as polite as they know how, that they in fact are not being particularly polite. But that's OK, and you probably already knew that anyway.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html?boxes=custom
According to Forbes, the top revenue teams for 2007 were:
NYY $327M, BOS $263M, NYM $235M, LAD $224M, CHC $214M, LAA $200M, ATL $199M, SFG $197M, STL $194M, SEA $194M, HOU $193M, CHW $193M, PHI $192M, CLE $181M, DET $173M, TEX $172M, then there's a drop-off to the 160's
The Yankees have a huge edge, and Boston a moderate one, but after that it's pretty close. All the teams in the 190's are large market, and can compete in spending with anyone but the Yankees.
Your core point being that the difference between a 5% of payroll flyer isn't notably differnt than a 4% of payroll flyer? If so, your math is basically right but your point is still wrong. Marginal values and all.
Again, what I'm trying to get at here is what you think they should do now, having missed out on the players they targeted. Sit on the cash, or use some of it on some higher risk but lower cost and shorter term contracts?
Of course any normal company is thrilled with a 20% operating margin, so they should be able to support total expenses of $160M, which would imply a major league payroll somwhere around $120-130M.
Plus, they'd still have the profit I'm sure they divert to TBS (YES! and the Yankees aren't the only one playing that game.)
Again, the Braves only "problem" is their ownership prefers more profit to more winning, and as a public company, that's probably the correct decision.
Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean when you say mega-market, but Boston doesn't look like it belongs anywhere near that category, and if it does, then Atlanta is right there with it.
U.S. Media Markets Sorted by Size
#1 New York, NY 15,340,000
#2 Los Angeles, CA 10,609,200
#3 Chicago, IL 7,612,100
#4 San Francisco, CA 6,012,000
#5 Dallas, TX 4,576,700
#6 Philadelphia, PA 4,291,700
#7 Houston, TX 4,165,000
#8 Washington, DC 4,041,300
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
#12 Miami, FL 3,489,800
#13 Puerto Rico 3,264,900
#14 Seattle, WA 3,150,300
#15 Phoenix, AZ 2,801,300
The Census Bureau seems to be under the impression that the Atlanta SMSA (#9) is larger than that of Boston (#10). There is no reason the Braves revenue stream can't equal or exceed Boston's.
The difference being that Atlanta has fully maxed out its potential market where the teams in the mega-markets, excepting perhaps Boston, have not. The Mets can grow their revenues in multiple ways - a fact that should be apparent next year with Citi Field and the new network. The Cubs can grow their revenues with the waxing and waning of the White Sox, as can the Angels with relation to Dodgers. The Braves are maxed out in their market. They and Philly are probably the biggest of the mid-market teams, but neither are true large-market teams. There's no direct comparisons between the MSAs of NY, Boston, LA or Chicago, and those of Atlanta, San Fransisco, St. Louis and Seattle. (Which may be why we're suddenly talking about year-to-year revenue rather than MSAs and market size...)
Yeah, it seems like the lottery arms strategy is back.
Come on, Chris. You don't cheer for Wilpon, and you didn't grow up cheering for Joan Payson. I'm pretty sure Sam didn't cheer for Ted Turner back in the day, either. Asking him to admit that his team's owners choose profits over winning is one thing, but it's kind of over-the-top to suggest that he's cheering for those owners or their approach to the business.
#9 Boston, MA 3,888,800
#10 Detroit, MI 3,859,700
#11 Atlanta, GA 3,750,700
Boston and Atlanta are similar in that while they are far from mega-markets, the franchises leverage their regional appeal to increase their revenue streams. If it was strictly about MSA's, there's no way these teams should have revenues similar to the two LA franchises.
At this point? The Braves should probably throw too much money at Derek Lowe and Adam Dunn. Eat the defensive shortcomings in order to maximize Chipper's last few productive years. Doing that probably precludes them from risking $5-10 mil on Smoltz. If they fail to land Lowe they should drop into a rebuilding defensive crouch, shop Chipper to an AL contender with prospects, sign Andruw and trade him at the deadline if he makes it possible, and basically tear it all down and start from scratch. They have McCann, Jurrjens, Hanson, Schafer, Heyward, Escobar and Johnson to build around at that point.
I admit that the Boston MSA figures are smaller than I expected. I suspect they have more regional support in the northeast than does Atlanta in the southeast, but I was expecting a larger MSA for Boston.
Probably. They have at least half the Hartford market, Springfield and Worcester, MA as well as Providence RI. And folks come in from northern New England as well. But isn't the big money in TV? I know they aren't an TBS anymore, but I imagine the Braves must be on some Fox Net Sports station all over the South.
Phone. I'll be back.
I agree. In this market, something like 4/$50 for each would probably get it done. 2009 is likely to be a lost year ... Hudson out, Schafer and Heyward getting final seasoning and below-average players in front of them ... but Dunn and Lowe should help for the foreseeable future, and if everything breaks right they could turn the team into a contender.
That game ended. It's all about regional sports networks now...
There but for the grace of God go you, Chris...
I think calling the Braves mid-market is misleading - we're a large market club behaving like a (relatively big) mid-market one.
TBS doesn't even carry Braves' games anymore. I would wager that its ostensible replacement, Sports South (or whatever it is called these days), doesn't differ in any substantial way from the generic RSN these days. Of course you may have been making a broader point about RSNs.
EDIT: Frank Wren is making me sad.
They are, but my recollection is that it doesn't cover the whole of what has traditionally been Braves' territory (which has been a very spread out area). I could be wrong though.
For Toronto, the "entire career" player of choice is Vernon Wells (1078 games played) or Roy Halladay (281 games pitched).
Every other player/pitcher ahead of them in service time as a Blue Jay started or finished their careers somewhere else.
As interesting as this whole discussion has been about whether or not Atlanta can spend as much as Boston, what has become apparant this off-season is that there has been a shift from a few small-market teams (KC; Pittsburgh) not being able to hold onto their stars when they hit their high-income years, for the benefit of 25 other MLB teams, to 25 MLB teams not being able to hold onto their stars when they hit high-income years, for the benefit of 5-6 MLB teams.
It is great for the fans for the 5-6 MLB teams that still can pay the salaries; it sucks to be everyone else. It has been fun and easy in past years to call the ownership groups in KC and Pittsburgh and Milwaukee stupid, but as Sam so clearly has pointed out above, do we not see a very strong correlation here between market-size, revenue size and success? The Yankees stupid moves just get buried in the minors; the others' stupid moves affect what they can do at the MLB level.
Honestly, how many MLB teams could have paid the mere negotiating rights fee for the japanese star pitcher, without any guarantee of any return? How many MLB teams could pay a Michigan Wolverines starting QB enough money to forego that opportunity, to founder around in the minors for a few years?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main