Official 2008-2009 MLB Offseason Thread

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Phillies' Romero Suspended 50 Games
By Ben Jones [January 5 at 9:26pm CST]

The Philadelphia Phillies might need to pick up some help for their bullpen after reliever J.C. Romero found out he has been suspended 50 games by Major League Baseball.

Romero failed a drug test, though he denies doing anything illegal.

"I still cannot see where I did something wrong," Romero told ESPN.com's Peter Gammons. "There is nothing that should take away from the rings of my teammates. I didn't cheat. I tried to follow the rules."

Oh. Shit.

[RedKingGold]

What's more surprising is that this has been relatively kept quiet.

The Philly Inquirer is reporting that the arbitator's hearing was shortly before the World Series. I'm surprised (and relieved) this wasn't released until now.

Posted on Mon, Jan. 5, 2009

Phils’ Romero facing 50-game ban

By Phil Sheridan

INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

An anguished J.C. Romero wanted to tell his side of the story before Major League Baseball announces his 50-game suspension on Tuesday. Once that happens, he knows, people will assume he's just another big-leaguer who had to cheat to compete.

"One thing I'm going to say, I'm a man and I'm accountable for my actions," the Phillies reliever said in a telephone interview. "If I'm guilty of something, you know what? I will face it. But I'm not guilty, and I'm not letting people that don't really know me judge me over something and accuse me of something that I didn't do."

Romero's situation is much more complicated than MLB's curt boilerplate announcement will acknowledge. He was not accused or found guilty of knowingly using a banned, performance-enhancing substance. Baseball and Romero agree that he used only an over-the-counter supplement he bought in a retail store in Cherry Hill. Romero is being suspended for 50 games and losing about $1.25 million in salary because, an abritrator ruled, he was "negligent" in not knowing what was in the supplement.

Most players, when suspended, release a statement acknowledging their mistake and apologizing to their teammates, their organization, baseball and the fans. In the current highly charged environment, where MLB has been embarrassed by Congress for its years-long failure to police itself, many players fear repercussions if they speak out.

Not Romero, the 33-year-old lefthanded reliever who won two World Series games for the Phillies - including the decision in the title-clinching Game 5. He feels he owes it to himself, his family and his teammates to explain how this suspension came about.

"If people are intimidated because Major League [Baseball] is a big organization, so be it," Romero said. "But they are not going to make an example of me thinking that I'm just a [dumb] Puerto Rican. It's not going to happen. It's not the way I'm built.

"For me to keep my mouth shut? That's not the right thing to do. If they want to bump me out of the game, so be it. What am I going to do, just sit back and take it? When I know in my heart I'm innocent? That doesn't fly well with me and it doesn't fly well in my house, either."

Phillies general manager Ruben Amaro Jr. declined to comment on Romero tonight. A spokesman for Major League Baseball also would not comment.

A new supplement

Romero said he went to the store to look for a supplement in July, the time of year he typically starts weight training again. He went to the shelf where his usual supplement was stocked and noticed a new product, 6-OXO Extreme, next to it. Because the familiar supplement required him to take eight large pills a day, he was intrigued by the other product.

The Major League Baseball Players Association has told players that supplements purchased in U.S. retails stores should be safe and within the guidelines of baseball's drug-testing program. The union acknowledged giving that advice in a letter it sent out to players and their advisers in November. That letter, which arrived too late to help Romero, informed players that three over-the-counter supplements were found to create positive tests under baseball's drug program.

In July, Romero showed the new supplement to Phillies strength coach Dong Lien, who recommended that Romero get a second opinion before using it. Romero then showed it to his personal nutritionist, "the guy I've been working with since I've been in major-league baseball," Romero said.
That nutritionist checked the product's label and saw nothing on MLB's banned list. Romero began taking the supplement at that point.

Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator's report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig's office in July.

Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement - one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths - that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players' association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement.

So where was the negligence? With Romero? With Lien? With MLB? With a union that told Romero and other Latin players they could trust products in U.S. stores such as Vitamin Shoppe (where Romero purchased the supplement) or GNC?

On Aug. 26, Romero gave a urine sample for a routine random drug test.

On Sept. 19, during a road trip to Miami, he submitted another sample for a random test. It was not until four days later - after being tested randomly a second time - that Romero was told the Aug. 26 sample tested positive for a banned substance. He said he immediately stopped using the supplement.

According to sources close to Romero, baseball then offered the pitcher a deal. He could accept a 25-game suspension, beginning immediately, or face a longer suspension in 2009 after going through an arbitration process. Romero declined the deal for three reasons.

First, he believed accepting the suspension meant acknowledging wrongdoing. Second, he was hearing from players' association attorneys that the circumstances made it seem likely that he would win at arbitration. Third, the suspension would have prevented Romero from playing in the postseason.

"It wasn't a tough decision to make at all," Romero said. "I knew I wasn't going to accept that. Me accepting a 25-game suspension meant I was guilty of something. I knew in my heart I wasn't guilty."

Arbitration during Series

Incredibly, MLB scheduled his two-day arbitration hearing in Tampa, Fla., before the first two games of the World Series. So Romero had to go to the hearing in the morning and then report to Tropicana Field to prepare for the biggest games of his life. Somehow, he managed to pitch very well in four World Series appearances, earning the wins in Games 2 and 5.

"Only God can do something like that," Romero said. "My faith. I knew in my heart I was innocent. It was my dream to be in the World Series. So I kind of separated the two of them. Early in the morning before I got to the field was a nightmare, but once I got to the field I was all about baseball."

Romero got the impression from players association lawyers that the hearings went very well for him and that he would likely get off with a warning. Clearly, he had taken a supplement he believed was OK and MLB seemed to grasp that.

"They knew the intention wasn't there, " Romero said. "They knew I wasn't taking steroids. They continued to pursue the fact that they thought it was negligence to not send my supplements in and going with my nutritionist, the guy I've been working with since I've been in major-league baseball. They made a big issue of that."

Romero became caught up in two separate subplots beyond his control or understanding. Baseball, because of its embarrassing mishandling of the steroid issue in the 1990s, is under pressure to catch cheaters and create the impression it has improved its policing techniques. At the same time, the FDA has had enormous enforcement issues with federal laws regarding the ingredients in over-the-counter supplements.

Here is where Patrick Arnold comes in. The man who first brought androstenedione to the U.S. marketplace and was the chemist behind development of THG - the designer steroid distributed by Balco - also runs a major supplement business called ErgoPharm. Arnold created and marketed the supplement Romero was using.

In an e-mail exchange, Arnold said there was nothing in his supplement that should have created a positive drug test.

"We have funded two independent clinical studies (one done at Baylor University) that have been peer reviewed," Arnold wrote. "These studies demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the product. We also have funded studies that have demonstrated the compound's compliance with FDA regulation. Furthermore, we funded another study at [University of Illinois] in Chicago using classical protocols that demonstrated that 6-OXO is absolutely not an anabolic steroid."

Andro, which first drew notice as when it was spotted in Mark McGwire's locker, can generate positive test results because of metabolites similar to those created by use of the steroid Nandralone. Arnold said that should not happen with his supplement. It is not clear what baseball or the players' union found in their testing of the supplement.

What is clear is that Romero is being suspended, not for shooting steroids into his backside like the players whom baseball chose to ignore for a generation. He is being suspended for not knowing the chemical composition of a very sophisticated over-the-counter supplement he bought in a mall in Cherry Hill.

It looks as if MLB, the players' union and the Phillies' staff were at least as negligent as Romero, but none of them are being punished.

"Having people who don't know me criticize me, it's kind of sad," Romero said. "I've been exhausted for the last 21/2 months. I'm drained right now."

Either baseball believes Romero cheated and allowed him to compete in the World Series, or it believes he made an innocent mistake and is suspending him 50 games anyway.

Which would be worse?

[stevew]

Man. I'm horrified at hearing about how bad Ibanez is on D. We may as well have signed Dunn.
Sounds like Romero is getting a raw deal here.

[DaddyTorgo]

sounds like romero is getting a massively raw deal.

fuck you MLB

[molson]

It's also possible that Romero is just a liar.

But regardless, drug testing and the consequences of a positive test have to be 100% black and white, no exuses, no intent requirement, just strict liability. Otherwise the whole drug testing program is pointless, you can just put your personal trainer in charge of everything and claim ignorance. To the extent MLB offered to cut him some kind of deal during the season, it was a mistake. He should have been suspended immediately.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah, but if MLB said that it was okay before he started taking it that's their fault not his

[molson]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah, but if MLB said that it was okay before he started taking it that's their fault not his

I thought it was the MLBPA that said that (maybe I didn't catch that part).

"Meanwhile, according to the arbitrator's report, Lien sent a sample of the supplement to MLB for testing. The tests showed the supplement contained a substance that could result in a positive drug test. A copy of those results was sent to commissioner Bud Selig's office in July.

Considering it was the first time a banned substance was found in an FDA-regulated, over-the-counter supplement - one available to every major-leaguer and millions of youths - that should have sounded alarms. But no one from MLB, the players' association or the Phillies told Romero that there was a problem with the supplement."

That part's just weird....So Lien got the results and he didn't tell Romero, or Romero wasn't interested in following up with Lien to find out what the results are? He just assumed that somebody would tell him if the drug he was using would cause a positive test?

If a player is trying weird shit they've never tried before, they're playing with fire.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah, but if MLB said that it was okay before he started taking it that's their fault not his

Isn't that what the NFL did to the eight players who were targeted for suspension a few weeks ago? If I recall right, most of those players fought that suspension in court and won (or at least won a stay, it may not be settled).

[Crapshoot]

BBTF's Transaction Oracle Discussion :: Rays - Signed Burrell

ahahahahahha.

Serious - Pat at 2/16 makes Ibanez look even dumber than before.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Simple. I think Burrell is the better player of the 2 and they don't have the resources of the Yankees or Boston even though they aren't a small market team. Every dollar they overpaid for Ibanez could have gone towards securing another player that could have helped the club. Hopefully, the Phillies management made the right call, and Ibanez outproduces what Burrell would have done here. However, I'm not at all convinced that will happen.

This is correct.

Plus, With a lineup of Utely/Howard/Ibanez, you've just given every manager the advantage to pull out his LOOGY for just that one sequence; while handedness is often overrated, tactically, this was an awful decision. Its made even worse by the fact that Howard should be sitting on the bench for LHP's - he's that awful. Now, Chase Utely is the best player in baseball, and hit LHP's pretty well last year, but in his career, has lost about 50 pts of OPS to them. Ibanez actually hit LHP's better last year but career wise, he's about a 120 pts of OPS worse. You've essentially reduced one of the best lineups in baseball to league average come late innings.

Btw, on the Howard bit: Howard vs LHP: .224/.294/.451; seriously, to put this in context, the league as a whole hit .264/.336/.417 vs LHP. Given his "defense" and his position, Howard should never be out there.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Jason Giambi, Oakland Athletics on verge of one-year deal - ESPN

Sweet Jesus. The A's get Giambi for 1/5.25 with an option year at 4 (with a 1.25 buyout).

His OPS+ last year was 128.

[ISiddiqui]

Oh my lord! Looks like the Burrell deal already has had an effect!

[johnnyshaka]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Jason Giambi, Oakland Athletics on verge of one-year deal - ESPN

Sweet Jesus. The A's get Giambi for 1/5.25 with an option year at 4 (with a 1.25 buyout).

His OPS+ last year was 128.

Love this move...Giambi...Holliday...Cust...definitely looks much better than anything the A's penciled into their 3, 4, and 5 spots last season...or the season before, for that matter.

[samifan24]

Carl Pavano to the Tribe.


Championship!

[ISiddiqui]

Apparently Romero will not appeal his suspension:

Philadelphia Phillies' J.C. Romero suspended for 50 games - ESPN

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Teams are getting smarter about figuring out defensive value, which is driving down the amount they're willing to pay a guy like Dunn that is well below average as a fielder.

I think the next change we're going to have in sabermetrics is a readjustment of the value of defense. The rage right now is to greatly overvalue it in statistical analysis and claim you're being cutting edge by including defense- I saw a figure that Willie Harris and his barely-a-bat-in-a-corner-outfield-spot was worth $15M.

That's different than in the game where a some GMs are coming around to defense but many still just look at the offensive numbers.

SI

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by molson

It's also possible that Romero is just a liar.

But regardless, drug testing and the consequences of a positive test have to be 100% black and white, no exuses, no intent requirement, just strict liability. Otherwise the whole drug testing program is pointless, you can just put your personal trainer in charge of everything and claim ignorance. To the extent MLB offered to cut him some kind of deal during the season, it was a mistake. He should have been suspended immediately.

From BP

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1141

Romero’s Chemist
by Will Carroll
J.C. Romero was suspended for fifty games under terms of MLB’s drug policy. Just before it was handed down, Romero made his case public, the same one that the arbitrator rejected. With the NFL’s drug policy currently under attack in the Starcaps case, where six players took a supplement that was tainted with a diuretic but unknown to the players, this type of defense might hold water.

Until you learn what Romero tested positive for. According to multiple sources (and also reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer), Romero tested positive for 6-OXO Extreme, a product that enhances testosterone production in ways very similar to anabolic steroids. While legal and still available at your local GNC, 6-OXO Extreme* has always carried a warning that it could result in positive tests. If you look at the above link, you’ll be able to find the same warning in the online information.

But it gets better, or worse, if you’re Romero. 6-OXO is a product of Ergopharm. Ergopharm is owned and operated by a guy you might remember: Patrick Arnold. Yes, that one. Arnold was the source for the THG used by BALCO. Arnold served several months in jail due to his involvement and is now back in business.

If Romero didn’t know what he was taking, he sure got unlucky in picking the product marked “for hardcore users only” and with a connection that baseball fans would rather forget.
UPDATE: It appears the substance in the 6-OXO that caused the positive test is another one that Arnold is known for: androstendione. Here’s more technical info if you’re so inclined, from one of the best in that biz.

[DaddyTorgo]

*sigh*

*eyes the taint on the Phillies accomplishments last year* didn't he get the W in a couple games?

clarifying: not saying that I'm bitching and moaning about it. more like waiting for the other shoe to drop and columnists and talking-heads to start freaking out about it. wondering what MLB's response will be then, if any.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

*eyes the taint*

Dude, never do that.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Dude, never do that.

oh i'm not saying that i am doing that. more like saying that i can't wait for the inevitable articles freaking out about it.

prolly should have been more clear. just wonder what baseball's response to this is going to be - if any.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I think the next change we're going to have in sabermetrics is a readjustment of the value of defense. The rage right now is to greatly overvalue it in statistical analysis and claim you're being cutting edge by including defense- I saw a figure that Willie Harris and his barely-a-bat-in-a-corner-outfield-spot was worth $15M.

That's different than in the game where a some GMs are coming around to defense but many still just look at the offensive numbers.

SI

Well, there's a few things at play here:

- Defensive value is still much harder to gauge than offensive value (or pitching value), but sabermetrics is getting better at it

- If you have a value you can assign to a player defensively, you can add that to their clearly definable offensive value to come up with an overall value that can then be compared to a baseline of replacement level performance

- With said comparison to baseline level performance, you can then determine what teams are paying on average for each additional "win" value, and get an idea of whether contracts are at, above or below this current standard

Now obviously you can argue defensive metrics. The current advanced metrics like RZR, UZR and +/- don't always agree with each other, and of course they often don't agree with "convential wisdom". But unless they differ greatly, they do provide some range of probable defensive value, especially when you look at a player's performance over multiple seasons.

To me, that's the only questionable thing about current analysis that attempts to rate whether signings are within current standards of dollars per additional WAR (wins above replacement).

Maybe it's crazy to think that a guy like Raul Ibanez could be giving back 20 runs of defensive value to counter the 30 runs or so of offensive value he provides. But the great thing is that as technology advances and we get more and better data to cull from, we're consistently getting closer to having accurate assessments of defensive value.

Here's the interesting thing - as more and more teams are getting on board with valuing defense, what's the next undervalued area for a "Moneyball" approach? If bad glove/good bat guys like Pat Burrell, Adam Dunn, Jason Giambi, etc. are now in fact undervalued, will we see a rush by teams like Oakland and Cleveland to snap them up? Obviously Oakland thinks that Giambi is a good value at 1 year/$5.25M. Given that he's likely to be a DH and not give away any value defensively, that deal makes a lot of sense for them.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

To me, that's the only questionable thing about current analysis that attempts to rate whether signings are within current standards of dollars per additional WAR (wins above replacement).

I think that's where we disagree. I think far too much values is given to fielding WAR because, again, fielding stats are in their infancy. As they should, the stat community is gobbling these up and trying to draw conclusions off of them. However, they are then putting them next to much more "mature" batting and pitching stats and saying they hold equal value, which just doesn't work when there's a lot of disagreement even among fielding stats.

We're going to find out in a few years that "Oh, yeah, you know how we said he was worth -30 runs in the field and that equates out to X wins. Well, X is now 1/3 what we used to think for fielding runs"- something that drastic.

And, yeah, I think we're going to start seeing some iron gloved guys get signed for a lot less. However, I think this year is an aberration. Don't mistake an industry wide pulling back of salaries for people all of a sudden wising up to these things. I think in the next couple of years, you'll see more of an adjustment and then there will be a chance for bargain hunting. But right now, there are still a lot of teams working off of "old school" baseball thinking so it's not like these guys would have been falling through the cracks in last year's economic climate.

SI

[dawgfan]

No, I think we're on the same page on fielding - it's not the WAR to $$$ formula that is really in question, it's the defensive values that go into calculating an overall WAR value. I agree that the metrics are new and are bound to improve in coming years as technology advances and more and better data is available to be analyzed.

As for the current market, I think it's probably a combination of a greater number of teams becoming sabermetrically inclined (and the commensurate adjustments in computing defensive value in overall value) and the current economic market. While there are still some old-school front offices (hello Phillies), they are fewer and farther between than ever - see the huge change in culture with the M's this off-season.

Teams have always valued defense to a certain extent in contract offers; what's changing is the amount of value they place in defense and, more importantly, how the judge defensive value. Perhaps the defensive values spit out by measures like RZR, UZR & +/- are exaggerated, but I have little doubt we're a lot further along in understanding fielding value in baseball than we were even 5 years ago.

[molson]

Interesting off-season. 2 things stand out to me in terms of the next collective bargaining negotiations.

1. Too many free agents. There's so many OF/1B out there that you get them for nothing. I think the MLBPA will be willing to push back free agency a year and try to pass it off as some kind of concession that they should get rewarded for.

2. I've never, ever, heard such emphasis on the draft pick compensation for signing free agents. I don't think the MLBPA expected this at all. I mean, who in the world is going to give up a draft pick and even $8 million for Jason Varitek? It's just not going to happen. He could have gotten $10-12 million in arbitration, and what is he going to have to settle for? Will he even get a job? The MLBPA will make a big stink over this at the next negotiations (and try to keep more revenue sharing off the table).

[Bad-example]

Jebus...Smoltz to the Red $ox. That is going be be almost as distasteful as seeing Greg Maddux play his home games at Chavez Latrine.

[DaddyTorgo]

great pickup for the Sox.

[ISiddiqui]

You obviously mean picking up Baldelli, not Smoltz, right?

After last years major injury and Smoltzy being 42... well, that's just screams "Danger" all over.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You obviously mean picking up Baldelli, not Smoltz, right?

After last years major injury and Smoltzy being 42... well, that's just screams "Danger" all over.

what are the contract terms? I haven't seen yet.

[ISiddiqui]

From ESPN.com:

Boston's proposed deal with Smoltz is for $5.5 million in base salary, and $5 million in incentives.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah - i like that deal.

$5.5mil on a flyer for a guy who could spot-start or come out of the pen is fine. The team had plenty of $$ come off the books, I want to see them spend some of it. And if he earns the incentives then he'll be worth them.

love love love the baldelli deal if it goes through and assuming it's for sane-$$. Local kid and if there actually is medically light at the end of the tunnel now he's a 5-tool guy. worst-case he's a pinch-hitter

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You obviously mean picking up Baldelli, not Smoltz, right?

After last years major injury and Smoltzy being 42... well, that's just screams "Danger" all over.

Both pickups. We now have 6 veteran starters (Beckett/Dice-K/Lester/Wakefield/Penny/Smoltz) with Buchholz and Bowden at AAA. The Sox aren't counting on Smoltz staying healthy and making 35 starts. In fact, they're counting on the exact opposite - that all 6 guys, Smoltz/Penny (and I think Lester) in particular will need some rest/DL time this season. Smoltz probably won't even debut until late May/early June.

In the Varitek situation, first of all he's a dumbass for turning down arbitration. Beyond that I've heard rumors that Henry is so disgusted with Boras and his negotiating tactics that he's willing to go into next season without Varitek, even if they don't trade for a veteran.

[Big Fo]

The Braves offered Smoltz $3m according to the AJC (or $1m more than that POS Mike Hampton was offered). Some off-season we're having, ugh.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

The Braves offered Smoltz $3m according to the AJC (or $1m more than that POS Mike Hampton was offered). Some off-season we're having, ugh.

Losing out on AJ Burnett is a good thing. Braves aren't winning anything this season anyway. Not sure what the fuss is over a 42 year old starter who will probably only make 20-25 starts anyway. The guy's been great, may as well let him finish his career with a good team.

[Mustang]

Looks like Hoffman will be the Brewer's closer next year. I'm not sure how that is going to work out.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Mustang

Looks like Hoffman will be the Brewer's closer next year. I'm not sure how that is going to work out.

Better than Eric Gagne we can hope. That will at least put Carlos Villanueva in a role that won't waste his ability to go multiple innings.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

The Braves offered Smoltz $3m according to the AJC (or $1m more than that POS Mike Hampton was offered). Some off-season we're having, ugh.

Not that that was a bad offer.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomi...o-long-smoltz/

From a team-quality standpoint, I really don’t see what the big deal is. John Smoltz is not just slightly hurt, and $5.5 million is a lot of guaranteed money to cough up for an injury risk. He didn’t just get his knee scoped. He’s about to turn 42, and he’s coming off major shoulder surgery. Yeah, I know he’s throwing off the mound, yadda yadda yadda, but that’s a long way from being the dominant pitcher he has been over the past few seasons.

The Braves supposedly had offered $2 million with incentives increasing the total to $7 million. I would not recommend that the Braves offer more than this. It’s easy to forecast Smoltz being on the hill in October, but there’s also a decent chance that he’ll be sitting on a gold-plated butt cushion in the dugout.
I don’t think Frank Wren deserves the heat that he is going to get for this. The Braves have paid Smoltz $130 million over his career. Smoltz wanted more, and I don’t blame Wren for passing. Signing and not signing Smoltz both have risks, and I think he gambled on the right side.

[sterlingice]

I didn't see it mentioned anywhere but John Patterson retired at 30 or 31. He was filthy when healthy, which was rarely. Really helped me in fantasy baseball his one "full" season. However, he was one of the Boras loophole guys so that's a bit of a strike against him in my book.

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Chipper, incidentally, blasted the organization over the Smoltz thing in the paper today.

A couple of things stood out to me in the Q&A.
talking about the absence of a contract extension for himself
A. We’ve got over a month until spring training. Yeah, it could certainly happen. I’ve just been chalking it up to the Braves have bigger fish to fry. But it seems like somebody keeps coming along and eating all our fish.

So far this off-season, Frank Wren looks extremely inept to me. Maybe that's the wrong word though, maybe more like completely out of his depth.



Q. For those who say Smoltz’s taken less money to stay with the Braves before, how do you explain why this time is different?

A. It’s easy. If the Braves would have handled this right from the beginning and gone ahead and bitten the bullet and offered him a contract, knowing that when John Smoltz sets his mind to it and says he’s coming back and is going to be back at full strength, that the second another team came into this, the Braves should have taken him aside and said ‘What do we have to do to make this work.’ John Smoltz has earned that respect. We’ve all taken less money to stay here, but the fact of the matter is that John Smoltz has nothing else to prove individually. He wants to win. Who has the best chance to win right now? Boston.

At no point since the worst-to-first year could I imagine any Brave saying that out loud. Just really hits home how far down they are at this point.

[DaddyTorgo]

chipper can come to boston too if he wants

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

chipper can come to boston too if he wants

FWIW, I'd rather you have taken him than Smoltz.

At least Smoltz is a guy I find pretty likable, whereas Chipper (correct though he may be on this subject) is a guy I've been tired of for years. When he's hot he can really rake but he's the least durable position regular we've had since Bob Horner.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Reading this reminded me of discussion past on this board.

Bloomquist To KC | U.S.S. Mariner

Imagine being a Kansas City fan this winter. Your team has now spent $11.5 million of the 2009 budget to acquire Kyle Farnsworth, Mike Jacobs, Horacio Ramirez, and Willie Bloomquist. That’s a replacement level reliever, a replacement level first baseman, a replacement level reliever, and a replacement level utility player. Even if you give them extremely optimistic forecasts, you’re looking at something like +1 win over what it could have cost to grab guys for the league minimum.
The Royals have spent about $11 million on free agents, and they might not even get one win out of it. Toss in Jose Guillen’s big salary from last year to be slightly above replacement level, and the Royals are tossing about $25 million down the drain. Nice job, fellas.

[samifan24]

Poor Royals. I like Kyle Davies, though, he works construction in the off-season.

[Fighter of Foo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

FWIW, I'd rather you have taken him than Smoltz.

At least Smoltz is a guy I find pretty likable, whereas Chipper (correct though he may be on this subject) is a guy I've been tired of for years. When he's hot he can really rake but he's the least durable position regular we've had since Bob Horner.

Why is that a bad thing? This seems like another version of blaming the best player when the team sucks. For the 130 games a year Chipper's out there, he's the best hitting 3B in baseball. You're tired of that??? You'd rather have someone who sucks but plays everyday?

i do not understand.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Lifelong Atlanta Braves Fan - eBay (item 300285650890 end time Jan-11-09 05:26:45 PST)

[miked]

Yeah, I hate a 3B/OF who averages 530 AB a season over a 15 year career. Especially one that had 530 PA last season and put up an OPS+ of 175. His career OPS+ is 145, insane.

[DaddyTorgo]

yeah. i'd take him in a heartbeat

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Lifelong Atlanta Braves Fan - eBay (item 300285650890 end time Jan-11-09 05:26:45 PST)

What a whiner. The Braves were given Smoltz what he was probably worth. Just because they didn't want to overpay, he's selling his loyalty? I thought we wanted our teams to not overpay. Smoltz just chased the money. That's all.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What a whiner. The Braves were given Smoltz what he was probably worth. Just because they didn't want to overpay, he's selling his loyalty? I thought we wanted our teams to not overpay. Smoltz just chased the money. That's all.

Considering the amount of money the Braves just wasted on acquiring a pitcher who at best is worth a damn for half a season, and that the f'n idiot GM actually made an offer to the useless p.o.s. Hampton, I don't blame Smoltz one bit.

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that our own Senator & Poli are better judges of talent for their respective teams than Wren.

About all that's left would be for him to add further insult to injury by wasting a dime on Glavine.
edit to add: And then most likely overpay for the round mound with no rebound to return as a rally killing doubleplay & strikeout machine. And by overpay I mean giving him the major league minimum.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

yeah. i'd take him in a heartbeat

And what I was saying was that would be fine by me. I've found Chipper to be an incredibly unlikable personality for several years now (his take on Smoltz is akin to a blind squirrel finding an acorn AFAIC) and he's about as brittle as the legendary Bob Horner.

[molson]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

What a whiner. The Braves were given Smoltz what he was probably worth. Just because they didn't want to overpay, he's selling his loyalty? I thought we wanted our teams to not overpay. Smoltz just chased the money. That's all.

Somebody tell that guy about Curt Flood and Andy Messersmith, he seems to be a little behind the times.