Just a minor edit, Dan --- you left Kotchman out of the headline...

The Angels are running away with the division. This is a trade for a a couple dozen October plate appearances. Personally, I think that's a terrible idea - just look at Sidney Ponson in San Francisco - but I guess I could see where they thought it was a good idea.

I also don't think that this gives the Angels the inside track on re-signing Tex (that's just a hunch, based on Beltran's partial year with Houston). This trade seems like a pure rental, and if the Angels should re-sign Tex it would be the same as if he had arrived as a free agent from Atlanta.

Forgot about the draft picks. That makes it look better for the Angels.

I doubt the Angels care about the draft picks. They'll do their best to keep Teixeira long term.

Anybody think theres a possibility that Tex could return to the Braves upon his entry into free agency? Im his biggest fan and it kills me to see this. Im about to say FK the Braves because they officially pissed away any chance at chasing down the Mets for at least a second or third place finish. I hate to say it, but Chippers not a young guy anymore and while I respect him and am a fan of his, Hes always on the DL or "Not trusting his hands." McCann can not try to do it alone as the sole power hitter. Make no mistake, I mean NO disrespect to anyone that is on the team, But in my opinion, its just a stupid move especially considering the bs they had to go through to aquire him in the first place. boy this question really ran away from me didnt it? Anyway, anyone think its a possibility?

If they planned on signing Teixeira as a 1B in the off-season, then why make Kotchman the centerpiece of the trade? The Braves have a lot of holes and seemingly would have sought to fill one of those if they anticipated to any degree that Teixeira would be back for 2009+.

Kotchman is likely the Braves 1B for the next few seasons.

Sill me, I go to Cot's Angels page to look up Kotchman's service time. But of course he's (he?) already updated the rosters. Incredibly quick on these things.

Kotchman was a super-2 and so is already getting "expensive." I doubt he'll produce enough to become EXPENSIVE during his arb years (and if so, that's a nice problem in a way) and the Braves could probably get him to sign a fairly nice-priced buyout right now. But my point was that Tex is only 3 years older than Kotchman, the Braves only have Kotchman under their control for 3 more years -- it's not exactly a great move for the Braves' long-term.

It is hard for me to see Kotchman developing significant power. For a guy who K's as little as he does, he should be sporting a much higher BA. His career BABIP is just 278 (just 279 this year) which is rather pathetic actually and suggests he's not exactly pounding the ball or a line drive machine. Maybe this will be a real test of the evil influence of Mickey Hatcher ... maybe the Braves will get him to trade contact for power and lift and he'll be a much better hitter. Not counting on it though.

Marek does seem a rather disappointing throw-in. Still, hard to argue against this for the Braves -- they traded 2 months of excellent 1B production for 3 years of average 1B production.

I think the only way the Braves get Tex back, is if they outbid everyone else in FA, which I just don't see happening. Especially considering they got a decent replacement for 1B. There are simply better ways to spend that money. And with Smoltz and Glavine done, I think their #1 priority this offseason will be sorting out the rotation.

But of course he's (he?) already updated the rosters.

he's = he is - so anything but that...

"he had" usually.

"He's" can also be "he has." Walt was using the present tense, so "he's" is fine there.

If Walt was unsure as to the gender of the person who runs Cot's rather than the appropriate use of the contraction...as far as I can tell it's a guy named Jeff, so "he" would be the correct choice there as well.

As for the deal, it's exactly the sort of thing the Angels needed to do. No, they didn't need Tex to win their division handily, but that's not the point. This is the kind of deal you make when you're serious about doing more than just making the playoffs. Bully for the Angels for making the aggressive move and not simply settling for a pennant.

They could've realized more of a gain by cutting bait on the Anderson/Matthews Jr. mess and trying to get one of the premier leftfielders that are available. However, that probably wasn't realistic for a whole host of reasons, including Matthews' contract and Anderson's standing with the franchise.

This upgrade, while perhaps not as great as adding one of Bay/Dunn/Holliday, is still significant and was almost certainly easier to achieve. Easier in the sense that the Braves were probably asking less for Tex than the Pirates, Reds, and Rockies were asking for their guys, and easier in the sense that it didn't result in the Angels having to marginalize (a) one of their most expensive FA signings of recent years or (b) a long-serving, popular player.

They have already marginalized Matthews, Mattbert.

Okay. Further marginalized?

I was going off the assumption that the organizational plan is to decline Anderson's option for 2009 and go with Matthews. Acquiring a new LFer, particularly one under contract for 2009 such as Bay or Holliday, would've basically turned Matthews into a $33M fourth outfielder or (unattractive) trade bait.

I admit I'm no expert on the Angels, though. Am I off base with any of that?

I seem to recall that Teixeira was a 3B when he came up. Maybe the Angels see him going back there? Don't know what he looks like nowadays, so don't know if 3B is out of the question.

That would be a bad idea as he was not a good thridbaseman while he is a great firstbaseman.

Options for 2009:

OK:
Figgins to LF, Rodriguez or Wood to 3B
resign Juan Rivera
play Willits
sign one of Ramirez/Dunn/Burrell/Bradley

Bad:
play GMJr.
exercise Anderson's option.

I read that the Braves chose the Angel offer over Chad Tracy and Micah Owings from Arizona, which kind of shocked me. It shows just how poorly Owings has pitched of late, this would have been a no-brainer if he was pitching like he did last year.

The interesting thing is that Owings has the best career OPS+ of any player mentioned in the trade rumors. If I were the Braves I would have considered that deal with the thought of Ankieling him.

Make no mistake, I mean NO disrespect to anyone that is on the team

I do, starting with jeff francouer.

Stephen Marek's either a guy from Timeline or a converted starter with a good curve. If he's the former, he certainly didn't help the Angels go back in time and not sign Sarge Lite and if he's the latter, the Angels are always developing decent relievers.

He's closer to the latter than the former. But I go back and dust off my standard comment:

Good stuff, needs better command of it.

The curveball is legit, and when it's on he gets lots of grounders with it. But he doesn't throw nearly enough strikes with it, his offspeed stuff is ordinary, and his fastball is about what you see from about three dozen other prospects out there. I see him as a setup guy at best.

I read that the Braves chose the Angel offer over Chad Tracy and Micah Owings from Arizona, which kind of shocked me.

Owings isn't any better than starting candidates the Braves already have; he's not a significant upgrade over James, Reyes, or Morton. Marek does fill something of a need; the Braves have had trouble building a bullpen over the last few years.

-- MWE

Maybe so, but I'm wondering if Owings would be an upgrade on Jeff Francoeur.

I'm not wondering.

Most major league middle relievers were starters in the minors, let's not treat them as a separate position. If the Braves think Marek is a better pitcher than Owings, that is a surprise to me. If I needed a reliever I'd rather try to convert a failed MLB starter than use a minor league reliever who couldn't quite handle starting as he moved up the minor league chain.

Anyone notice Owings outrageously low 61.1% LOB? That'd place him dead last of fangraphs qualifiers. His FIP is actually lower this year than last...

If I needed a reliever I'd rather try to convert a failed MLB starter than use a minor league reliever who couldn't quite handle starting as he moved up the minor league chain.

Depends on the pitcher. Marek's raw stuff is better than Owings's, which to my mind makes him a better candidate to succeed in the bullpen. Owings doesn't have a consistent out pitch anything like Marek's curveball.

-- MWE

Stephen Marek's either a guy from Timeline or a converted starter with a good curve.

Or he's America's only mutineer...


I cannot remember the last time the Braves were sellers at the deadline. 1988? '89?

Maybe so, but I'm wondering if Owings would be an upgrade on Jeff Francoeur.

Micah's brother is a OF in the Atlanta system. And he would be an upgrade over Francoeur too!

I cannot remember the last time the Braves were sellers at the deadline. 1988? '89?

Dale Murphy, 1990.

That is, unless you consider the Mike Stanton trade in 1995 to be a "sell" move.

RE: BravesFan1 (#5), I think you're like a lot of Braves fans in failing to see how fast this team fell apart. The Braves are not in a position to hold on and fight a meaningless fight for third place. They're in a position where they need to acquire talent in order to be competitive again in 2009. More likely 2010. They have a lot of holes to fill and they can't do that by holding onto players for the sake of holding onto players. Kotchman and Marek are more valuable to Atlanta than two months of Tex and the possibility of finishing third instead of fourth or fifth.

Atlanta will have +/- 25 mil to spend on free agents this winter. They need to spend that on a top of the rotation starter - CC Sabathia for example - not Tex. Not if they can fill 1B with a useful player instead. Keep in mind that Smoltz is in no way guaranteed to return next year (if he doesn't that's another $12 mil they can spend) and Hudson is almost certainly going to be out the entire year recovering from Tommy John surgery. They need to spend their money on someone to take the pressure off of Jurrjens and Campillo (assuming Campillo doesn't implode himself.)

They have already marginalized Matthews, Mattbert.

I thought that this meant guys named Matthew, not the player named Matthews. I also thought that it was harsh because Mattbert was most likely named Matthew.

He could be named Bert, though.