LaRoche traded - Page 2

drewdat · January 18th, 2007, 09:54 AM

I'm pretty sure we're scraping the ceiling of the budget, and there were rumors that that was why LaRoche was being shopped (we saved 1 million in the deal). There may be about 3 million left in there, which leaves a lot of money on the second year that we probably can't afford. We don't really have any bad contracts (that don't have no-trade rights), and those are mostly just not optimal with our salary structure, IMO. At some point, we will probably be sold, too, which could change the budget. I don't think the financials could work, we're basically turning into the A's with 2 or 3 extra big contracts (which is a pretty big difference, but outside the expected performance, the budgets work about the same (Giles, Furcal, wait for Andruw, etc.). I would assume from a personnel standpoint that Sexson would be of interest (getting the question). Don't think Seattle would be willing to do what they'd have to to get him here, though.

jecqua · January 18th, 2007, 11:11 AM

I think LaRoche was actually getting much better defensively and just about where he was expected to be offensively & he was inexpensive, so I don't care for this.

Yogi44 · January 18th, 2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

& he was inexpensive, so I don't care for this.

Here's the problem. He's inexpensive in today's market, but expensive (asked for 3.7 million) in Braves budget terms. The market has exploded and almost everyone elses payroll, but yet ours remains at 80 mil or below.

drewdat · January 18th, 2007, 12:11 PM

It's the problem with trading high - you lose some recent good production. I'm unconvinced that LaRoche could repeat his numbers (maybe split the difference between '05 and '06), but he had a lot better chance at making 1B a positive than anyone now on the roster. On the flip side, we were able to get some premium talent in return and we didn't wait until non-tender time on this one. If you think LaRoche can repeat or do better, the trade is not so good; if '06 was a fluke, it's a good haul.

Nocahoma · January 18th, 2007, 12:14 PM

Less than $80 mil, but with no hope of that rising at all. Hell, it's been that way for how many years now? The Braves have actually slipped more when you consider the movement of the entire market (i.e., the payroll of other teams). I wish I could say it was just AOL/TW not caring and not wanting to sink money (notice I did NOT say "Invest") into the team, but this potential Liberty deal has got me scared poopless that we're staring down the barrel of a couple more years of the same thing. If an entity is willing to buy a team simply for the tax write-off, what hope do we have that they would ever want to build the value of that team?

Liberty (and maybe even AOL/TW) reminds me of the "rich old broad" who owned the Charlestown Chiefs in Slap Shot. Anyway, as if I didn't hate AOL enough for leveraging a crappy product into actual market share, now they have gone and fudged up the Braves Fans' worlds for years to come because of their hubris. They ruined Time-Warner, and now they are ruining the Braves.

[shifting gears]

I'm with Drew on looking at Craig Wilson or Choi, but Choi would have to come with a Therapist to compensate for having Dusty Baker rip out his manhood several years back. Pena, I'm convinced, is done. Hell, I'm not convinced he was ever real to begin with.

There has been contention in the past that Choi would greatly benefit from a platoon situation. Without looking at the actual splits, he would fit that with either Woodward or Wilson.

DanDan · January 18th, 2007, 03:28 PM

Well...according to Mr. Bigstuff (you know who I mean) we wouldn't be interested in Choi. So we'll probably get him.

Nocahoma · January 18th, 2007, 08:41 PM

That might be redundant with today's Wilson signing.

LongtimeBravesFan · January 19th, 2007, 04:02 PM

If Liberty takes over this year the Hampton deal concerns me. TW went the first few years paying Hampton little or nothing and now the Braves' years of paying big money are coming up. The deal only costs the team an average of $8 million or so a year. but will the money in the Hampton "account" be given to Liberty in the deal or will they be on the hook for the big contract years.

If its the latter, that could seriously impact payroll.

MikeT · January 21st, 2007, 05:23 PM

Bishedr weighs in:
Furman Bisher: LaRoche's trade a loss to club, fans | Sports Columnists | ajc.com

January 18th, 2007, 09:54 AM	#16 (permalink)
drewdat Rookie Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 8	I'm pretty sure we're scraping the ceiling of the budget, and there were rumors that that was why LaRoche was being shopped (we saved 1 million in the deal). There may be about 3 million left in there, which leaves a lot of money on the second year that we probably can't afford. We don't really have any bad contracts (that don't have no-trade rights), and those are mostly just not optimal with our salary structure, IMO. At some point, we will probably be sold, too, which could change the budget. I don't think the financials could work, we're basically turning into the A's with 2 or 3 extra big contracts (which is a pretty big difference, but outside the expected performance, the budgets work about the same (Giles, Furcal, wait for Andruw, etc.). I would assume from a personnel standpoint that Sexson would be of interest (getting the question). Don't think Seattle would be willing to do what they'd have to to get him here, though. Last edited by drewdat; January 18th, 2007 at 09:56 AM.

January 21st, 2007, 05:23 PM	#24 (permalink)
MikeT Moderator Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,591	Bishedr weighs in: Furman Bisher: LaRoche's trade a loss to club, fans \| Sports Columnists \| ajc.com __________________ You can lead a man to Congress, but you can't make him think. Milton Berle

January 18th, 2007, 11:11 AM	#17 (permalink)
jecqua Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 654	I think LaRoche was actually getting much better defensively and just about where he was expected to be offensively & he was inexpensive, so I don't care for this.

January 18th, 2007, 12:11 PM	#19 (permalink)
drewdat Rookie Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 8	It's the problem with trading high - you lose some recent good production. I'm unconvinced that LaRoche could repeat his numbers (maybe split the difference between '05 and '06), but he had a lot better chance at making 1B a positive than anyone now on the roster. On the flip side, we were able to get some premium talent in return and we didn't wait until non-tender time on this one. If you think LaRoche can repeat or do better, the trade is not so good; if '06 was a fluke, it's a good haul.

January 18th, 2007, 12:14 PM	#20 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	Less than $80 mil, but with no hope of that rising at all. Hell, it's been that way for how many years now? The Braves have actually slipped more when you consider the movement of the entire market (i.e., the payroll of other teams). I wish I could say it was just AOL/TW not caring and not wanting to sink money (notice I did NOT say "Invest") into the team, but this potential Liberty deal has got me scared poopless that we're staring down the barrel of a couple more years of the same thing. If an entity is willing to buy a team simply for the tax write-off, what hope do we have that they would ever want to build the value of that team? Liberty (and maybe even AOL/TW) reminds me of the "rich old broad" who owned the Charlestown Chiefs in Slap Shot. Anyway, as if I didn't hate AOL enough for leveraging a crappy product into actual market share, now they have gone and fudged up the Braves Fans' worlds for years to come because of their hubris. They ruined Time-Warner, and now they are ruining the Braves. [shifting gears] I'm with Drew on looking at Craig Wilson or Choi, but Choi would have to come with a Therapist to compensate for having Dusty Baker rip out his manhood several years back. Pena, I'm convinced, is done. Hell, I'm not convinced he was ever real to begin with. There has been contention in the past that Choi would greatly benefit from a platoon situation. Without looking at the actual splits, he would fit that with either Woodward or Wilson.

January 18th, 2007, 03:28 PM	#21 (permalink)
DanDan Rookie Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7	Well...according to Mr. Bigstuff (you know who I mean) we wouldn't be interested in Choi. So we'll probably get him.

January 18th, 2007, 08:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
Nocahoma Moderator Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 1,238	That might be redundant with today's Wilson signing.

January 19th, 2007, 04:02 PM	#23 (permalink)
LongtimeBravesFan Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 4,662	If Liberty takes over this year the Hampton deal concerns me. TW went the first few years paying Hampton little or nothing and now the Braves' years of paying big money are coming up. The deal only costs the team an average of $8 million or so a year. but will the money in the Hampton "account" be given to Liberty in the deal or will they be on the hook for the big contract years. If its the latter, that could seriously impact payroll.