We are determined to keep this rumor alive. Here is DOB:
Braves are still pursuing Johnny Damon, and it could happen now that his price has presumably shrunk along with his market.
I'm guessing he has a source somewhere along the way who is whispering him these little nuggets.
In other Braves-related news, the Diamondbacks signed our former first baseman, Adam LaRoche:
Hearing that Diamondbacks signed free-agent first baseman Adam LaRoche to one-year contract
He'll get to hang out with Kelly Johnson, who signed with the 'Backs earlier this off-season. A one-year contract seems like sort of a disappointment for Adam.
0 recs | 121 comments
Orioles should have got him…
bwellnjonesco - January 14, 2010
Sign Damon, if the price is right.
Move the “Melk-man” to somebody like the Cubs.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
This.
ChrisK562 - January 14, 2010
Wouldn’t that give us the worst defensive outfield in the National League?
pancanbra - January 14, 2010
Diaz/Nate/Heyward……Not necessarily. If Matty D keeps his slimmer figure, he can move.
No worries, mate.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
i would think damon would start if he signs
Doghnut - January 14, 2010
True. If I was Cox, I would try to swing a Damon/Diaz platoon in left. Nate in center. Heyward in right. From day 1.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
no thanks
unless Jason absolutely goes nuts in spring training, i’d like to see him at AAA for 2 months (assuming we sign Damon). we can manage and it’ll save us money in the future.
Scott Coleman - January 14, 2010 via mobile
Either way, I think Wren and Bob will make it work.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
eh
money in the future or not if Heyward is that good he will get locked up anyway
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
And after two months, what do we do then?
If Diaz is hitting like last year, we have no space for Heyward barring a give away of Diaz. (We can’t trade Damon until near the start of July if we sign him as a free agent.)
cavebird - January 14, 2010
Pretty sure its June 1
acie4mvp - January 14, 2010
Sign Damon, keep Heyward down...
“and it’ll save us money in the future”. Maybe, but it will also cost us more money this year to put a worse player in the field.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
Damon will not sign for a platoon role.
If we sign Damon, it will be to start. Which means either Diaz gets moved for the kids stay on the farm all year barring a major injury to Diaz or Damon. That’s why it just doesn’t make sense to me.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
beggers can't be choosers
and right now, Damon is entering LaRoche territory. There just don’t look to be any options outside of the Braves at this point.
was385 - January 14, 2010
If his price is $4-5 million...
…someone will pay him that much to start. They would be stupid not to if they have an outfield hole. And there are still plenty of teams who wouldn’t mind a cheap solid hitting OF.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
And since we don't have a starting spot for him...
maybe that’s why he won’t sign. Any chance DOB’s source is Scott Boras trying to fabricate any interest for his client?
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
36% chance.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
Anyone know?
Is his arm really THAT bad? Anyone know from first hand experience?
How about his range?
proeye - January 15, 2010
yea
go re-watch some yankee games
drumzalicious - January 15, 2010
Melky's status with the Braves has nothing to do with Damon.
Melky is the fourth OF. His value is the ability to switch-hit and play all three OF positions. Damon, if we do sign him, is the starting left-fielder. This moves Diaz to right, giving us probably the worst OF defense in the majors, although not significantly different from what we ran out there last September. (Damon’s noodle arm is bad, but I doubt he can be any worse than Garrett Anderson in the field.) I don’t see how this would affect Melky Cabrera’s situation with the Braves at all; if we don’t sign Damon, Melky is the fourth OF, if we do sign Damon, Melky is the fourth OF.
Signing Damon makes sense either if: (1) we think that both Schafer and Heyward should spend the entire season (except maybe September) in AAA, or (2) we think Diaz won’t cut it and plan to trade him. Otherwise, it doesn’t make much sense to me.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
I agree with the bad defense remark. I believe having a defensively solid OF is a huge advantage over other teams, especially when you have a lot of pitchers that pitch to contact. Too often we concentrate on offensive numbers, but there’s a lot to be said for a defensively sound team.
That being said, one thing that Damon would bring us is the closest thing to a legitimate lead off guy that we’ve had since Furcal. I don’t like any of our options at the number one spot thus far.
pancanbra - January 14, 2010
A lead-off hitter...
….doesn’t lead-off every inning. For certain, only once a game and maybe a little more often than other hitters in later innings because pitchers usually make outs (assuming the pitcher is batting ninth). Thus, while having a good “lead-off” type hitter is nice, I don’t think it is entirely necessary. I wouldn’t want us to screw the defense and block the prospects to get one on rental.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
And his OBP isn't...
much better than McLouth, with less speed and less power. So how does he even improve us there?
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
He can steal bases, has a better OBP. even if not by a whole lot, and hits for a higher average. He also allows us to push Nate’s homers further back in the lineup.
pancanbra - January 14, 2010
McLouth can steal more bases...
and pushing him back moves someone else out, either Diaz or Melky/Heyward.
With Heyward and Schafer on the brink of playing everyday, it makes no sense. Orlando Hudson makes more sense, and would cost less. We don’t need another OF, let alone one as expensive as Damon who provides as little production as he can. If we wanted someone like him, Ryan Church or Randy Winn made much more sense.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
It's about redundancy,,,
cavebird, the reasoning behind the Damon signing would be about having lots of viable options in the outfield, which is what you need when you don’t have star power. There is a TON of risk in the outfielders we have not named Nate McLouth:
Matt Diaz has struggled to hit right-handed pitching in his career (and that’s a pretty critical skill if you’re going to be an everyday player and face RHPs 70-75% of the time). Jason Heyward is 20 years old, and 20 years old is 20 years old, no matter how talented you are. Jordan Schafer’s lost huge chunks of his last two seasons, when he should have been working on cutting down his strikeouts and on hitting left-handed pitching. Melky Cabrera has a career .716 OPS. All those guys have talent, no doubt, but come with massive question marks.
The moral of the story is this: Damon doesn’t crowd them out of the picture, he just cuts the necessary success rate from 50% to 25%. Without Damon, you need two of those four to be starting OFs. With Damon, just one has to make it. If it’s Diaz (and presumably Matty will get the first shot), then the Braves can take advantage of Melky’s versatility by using him as a roving fourth outfielder. They can afford to be patient with both Schafer and Heyward (and don’t forget the financial benefit reaped by leaving J-Hey at Gwinnett. Trust me, if Damon, McLouth and Diaz are all OPS-ing .800 or better six weeks in, no one’s gonna be clamoring for Jason Heyward…we’ll all be talking about how great it is to give him the extra development time. But that’s not likely to happen: someone gets hurt, someone’s ineffective, and voila Heyward is in the majors.
But without Damon, that failsafe is absent. Heyward is in the majors to start, and if there are injuries or struggles, you’re forced to make Melky an everyday starter or take your chances with Schafer again, and really risk screwing with his development. When you have guys like Schafer and Heyward, who can only benefit from time in the minors, there’s no such thing as too much depth.
tgthree - January 14, 2010
And considering the price he wants...
“the reasoning behind the Damon signing would be about having lots of viable options in the outfield, "
Sounds a lot like the reasoning behind signing Derek Lowe. How’d that idea pan out? Overpaying to put yourself in a position of extreme excess makes no sense.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
Lots of problems with this comment...
First, look, Damon and Boras can jabber all they want about wanting $10 million a year. Blah blah blah. The Yankees are said to have somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 million to spend, and it’s also said that Damon wants to play for a contender (read: not Royals or Pirates, et al). So where does he have left to turn? Atlanta is perhaps the only destination which fits that criteria. If someone else wants to offer $8 million a year or multiple years, let him go elsewhere. But he doesn’t have anywhere near that kind of bargaining power, no matter how good Boras thinks he is.
Second, this is nothing like the Derek Lowe signing. At all. The Lowe signing gave us excess in the rotation in terms of cost and commitment as well; suddenly there were three starters with eight-figure, multiyear commitments. For Damon, you’re talking about one year, and nobody else besides McLouth is signed beyond 2010. Lowe’s contract, coupled with the Vazquez deal and the Kawakami signing, took away a lot of long-term flexibility. Damon’s contract wouldn’t create any such problem.
Third, I don’t have a problem at all with the Derek Lowe signing. It looks bad because Lowe regressed significantly, but there was little reason to expect that at the time the deal was done, and at that point 4/60 sounded like a fair price to a goodly number of experts. And it wasn’t even excess at the time, since Huddy was still sidelined. But our pitching staff was one of the best in the league in case you didn’t notice, and there was value in knowing that there was depth there. The Lowe signing is problematic not because of the excess it created, but because of the unanticipated regression in Derek’s performance. If he were still Lowe circa 2008, there’d be considerably less complaining that Javy Vazquez was gone.
Fourth, “extreme excess”? Really? Come on, man. Melky Cabrera and Jordan Schafer do not qualify as anyone’s definition of “extreme excess,” especially when the two starters ahead of them are, respectively, a platoon player (and the short half at that) and a 20-year-old rookie. And remember, Nate McLouth’s not invincible. Guys can…ya know…get hurt.
tgthree - January 14, 2010
Atlanta may be a championship caliber team, but according to Wren, we have no money to spend either. And we also don’t have a need for an OF either. So I’m not sure just how much of a “fit” there is between Damon and Atlanta.
And if McLouth gets hurt, Damon can’t fill the void. He is useless here, and not worth the price even if he wasn’t. You’re right, it isn’t like Lowe, we actually needed a player like Lowe. We don’t need Damon.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
No one said we have no money...
…or if they have, you’ll need a link. They said they were done making offseason moves, not that they had no money left. That’s a hugely important distinction. And again, where are you getting this idea we have no need for an outfielder? Matt Diaz isn’t proven. Jason Heyward isn’t proven. Jordan Schafer isn’t proven. Melky Cabrera is proven, but he’s proven that he’s not a starting caliber outfielder. Lots of bodies, sure, but massive amounts of risk. What is the outfield if Diaz continues to struggle against RHPs? Or if Heyward isn’t ready (which doesn’t really matter because he’s forced to start anyway without Damon, unless you really want to watch the Melkman prove AGAIN that he’s not a starter)?
If McLouth gets hurt, Damon doesn’t fill the void, but it means you’ve got an extra layer of protection, because you’ve still got Heyward hanging out in the minors.
tgthree - January 14, 2010
See...
Wren said they were close to their projected payroll limit, which is expected to be a little over $90 million.
http://www.ajc.com/sports/atlanta-braves/it-s-official-glaus-267589.html
Multiple articles since Glaus/Hinske were announced have mentioned us being at our payroll limits. So yes, people have said that.
And you’re right, we need to have 7 potential starting OFs just in case. That makes sense when only 3 start.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
Oh, and...
…“close” to the projected payroll limit is an utterly meaningless turn of phrase. We don’t know if that means they’ve got $10 left or $10 million left. And there’s frankly little incentive for the front office to be upfront about issues like payroll.
The multiple articles since Glaus/Hinske are largely just making assumptions, as far as I’ve seen. Nowhere have I seen Frank Wren, or even a mysterious “major-league source,” cited as saying they don’t have room for another $5 million contract. And if they are indeed pursuing Damon, there must be some money sitting around somewhere.
tgthree - January 14, 2010
More...
http://markbowman.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/01/braves_contend_their_payroll_w.html
http://www.talkingchop.com/2010/1/6/1237546/the-braves-payrollgate-2010
Just cause the media keeps saying we have interest in Damon doesn’t make it so.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
How about we just agree to disagree...
cause I clearly don’t hold Damon in the high regard you do, nor Heyward, Schafer, Diaz, and especially Cabrera, in as low regard as you do.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
I don't hold any of those guys...
…in “low” regard, nor do I hold Damon in particularly high regard. If you really think the Braves have six starting-caliber outfielders right now, you’re certifiably nuts.
What excites you about Cabrera and his .716 career OPS?
Do you not think Jordan Schafer would benefit hugely from more time in the minors?
You are 100% confident that Jason Heyward is ready and will simply rake from day 1?
And you have no concerns about Matt Diaz’s ability to adjust to an everyday job?
I think all of those guys (Cabrera excepted) have the POTENTIAL to be starting outfielders. But potential is potential, and potential doesn’t win championships. At least I know what I’m likely to get from Damon…an .800-ish OPS and about 2 WAR. Then I can let Heyward stay in the oven as long as he needs, and I don’t have to confront any scenarios where Cabrera starts on a regular basis. What is the downside?
tgthree - January 14, 2010
Cabrera is an 8 hole hitter...
and OF filler. I never said he “excites” me. I just don’t consider him trash and worthless as so many others seem to think of him. I think he brings good value as an average OF to fill the spot until Heyward, Schafer, or both take over starting jobs.
Yes, I think Schafer would benefit from starting the year in AAA.
I am not 100% confident Heyward rakes from day 1.
And as others can tell you, I clearly have concerns about Diaz becoming an everyday player.
But with all that in mind, I’m still not wanting to spend the $5m+, or even worse two guaranteed years, that it might take to get Damon. I do not think he gives an .800+ ops outside of Yankee Stadium. I’m thinking Damon is a poor fit defensively with McLouth and others, can hit for avg but will be at best in the teens on steals and HRs, so he just doesn’t provide much more than Blanco. Better facial hair, more singles and doubles, worse defense. We don’t need Damon. I’d rather have Orlando Hudson or Randy Winn if we are really pursuing one more potential starting position player.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
“will be at best in the teens on steals and HRs, so he just doesn’t provide much more than
Blanco” should be Cabrera, who also has proven consistent between 10 and 20 in HR and Steals.Should have added the line I think Damon doesn’t bring too much more than Blanco overall. before the Better facial hair… line.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
He had a 795 last year on the road.
Why is it so inconceivable he could do better outside of the AL East? Oh, and last I checked, homers and steals aren’t the only ways to put runs on the board.
MichaelProcton - January 16, 2010
Just curious...
How do you figure that Cabera has “proven he’s not a starter?” Is he a stud OF? No, but there are certainly plenty of worse players there that start every day in the league.
MichaelProcton - January 15, 2010
Fine, he just said...
we’re near our payroll limit.
Mr. Sanchez - January 15, 2010
damn it reply fail.
Mr. Sanchez - January 15, 2010
Wren never said we had "no money to spend."
He said he was happy with the roster as it stands heading into ST. Totally different statements.
MichaelProcton - January 15, 2010
Umm...
So you’d rather have started JoJo Reyes or James Parr last year instead of Lowe? Yeah, didn’t think so.
MichaelProcton - January 15, 2010
Or Medlen...
Vasquez, Jurrjens, Hanson, Kawakami, Medlen.
Mr. Sanchez - January 15, 2010
The Kris Medlen who had a 6.38 ERA and a 1.53 WHIP as a starter?
Yeah, I can’t see that that could have even possibly not worked out.
MichaelProcton - January 16, 2010
That's an interesting idea, but...
…we already have cheaper depth that can fill in for short injuries, etc, with guys like Hinske and Infante. How much depth do we need at what price? Wouldn’t saving that money for a mid-season acquisition when we know whether the OF is a problem or whether one of the corners have gone down or whether Wagner has gone down, etc., be a better use of the money?
And I disagree with Damon crowding people out. Yeah, there may be an injury, but if it is just a two week DL stint variety, Melky fills in and nobody gets called up. If Diaz hits (and yes, it is an if) he continues to play. Damon will play unless hurt pretty much regardless of results, as will McLouth. So yes, that crowds the youngsters out, makes Hinske less valuable (since his use at corner OF positions is wasted), and takes away the money we would have for draft picks or a midseason acquisition.
Finally, yes, even if Damon, Diaz, and McLouth are OPSing over .800 six weeks in, some will be clamoring for Heyward, if only because our pitchers (who are not particularly strikeout pitchers) are suffering because of the very poor defense in the OF. And if Heyward is trashing AAA pitching and showing he has nothing left to prove there, I guess he can lead Gwinnett to a AAA title or something; they should have a good rotation in Gwinnett as well. ;)
cavebird - January 14, 2010
I'm not talking about short injuries...
and I’m really not even talking about injuries at all (though that’s certainly part of the risk). I’m FAR more concerned about long-term performance viability. I don’t want to have to promote Jason Heyward if he’s not ready, and I don’t want Melky Cabrera to have to start, but without Damon, one of those things MUST happen unless Heyward is ready. And as talented as Heyward is, there are no guarantees with 20-year-olds. And even THAT decision tree ASSUMES that Diaz lasts as an everyday player, and I have my doubts about that as well.
In my eyes, Schafer needs to go back to Gwinnett, period, end of story. He’s missed too much development time due to his suspension and wrist injury, and still has plenty to learn and work on. So maybe Diaz learns to hit righties. Maybe Heyward really is an .825 OPS player from day one. And maybe Melky Cabrera magically learns to hit. But I do NOT want to take my chances that TWO of those three things occur. One out of three, OK, but not two, and there are no backup plans if things go wrong (again, God forbid McLouth gets hurt).
Saving money for mid-season acquisitions isn’t a strategy I like, especially not in Atlanta. Struggle out of the gate, and the fans won’t come. Period. At least with a strong start, you can hope that you sell some tickets and end up with an extra million or two on the balance sheets. Or, push comes to shove, you give up an extra prospect to get some cash in any potential deal at the deadline…sometimes you have to pay future value to get present value. I’d much rather be in a strong position at the deadline (even if it means less cash) than just barely on the cusp of contention and forced to do something drastic (like trade for Mark Teixeira).
Finally, I don’t buy that Heyward and Schafer can be “crowded out.” In my book, rookies ought to have to force the issue. Handing Schafer a job didn’t go so well last year, as far as I remember. If Heyward starts shredding the International League again, a hole will open up somewhere, don’t you worry. Someone gets hurt even just for two weeks, and Heyward might pull a Yunel Escobar and win the job and never look back. Or Diaz doesn’t quite perform…gimme some Heyward. But I don’t like leaving a spot open for unproven players…I can understand not blocking them in the long term, but in the short term, make ’em win their playing time. Leaving Heyward down has the added benefits of that extra year of team control (hugely important), and, as you say, Heyward can still help profits out in Gwinnett (remember that the Atlanta Braves own the Gwinnett Braves and thus have an interest there).
Oh, and your comment about outfield defense. Sure we don’t have too many strikeout pitchers, but Huddy, Lowe and Jurrjens all rely on ground balls to a great extent, and Diaz has put up good UZR numbers in the past. I’d say maybe you lose one win on the OF defense, especially if Cox uses Melky wisely as a defensive replacement. That win pales in comparison to the three wins or so that Damon could add on offense.
tgthree - January 14, 2010
I still disagree with several of your points.
1. Diaz has put up decent UZR numbers in left field. Not in right field (those were horrible last season) where he will play if we sign Damon.
2. Holes don’t always open up. (Sorry, will worry, but thanks for telling me not to.) What happens in the scenario I mentioned (and you ignored) where Heyward tears up AAA, but all three OF in Atlanta (Damon, McLouth, and Diaz) are sporting OBP’s over .800. All with average (McLouth) or worse (Diaz and Damon) defense, so they aren’t providing all that much value. Still, hitting like that, you can’t bench them, so the hole that opened is the same hole in the AAA outfield at the start of the season. The idea of having our next great talent sit at Gwinnett blocked by average OF’s like Damon (he’s average when you consider hitting and defense) because hey, it increases Gwinnett’s profits is pretty much absurd. As for the extra year of team control, that happens so long as Heyward isn’t up opening day. The extra year of arbitration point happens some time in June. The point where we lose any potential to ever get a hometown discount from him ends the first time the front office tells him that he isn’t up yet because they want better profits in Gwinnett.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
1. That’s a sample size fluke. Tom Tango’s research has showed pretty conclusively that there is no difference between left field and right field as far as range is concerned. His outfield UZR for his career is +3 runs per 150 games…using a 550-inning UZR sample from right field doesn’t really tell you anything. There’s little reason to criticize Diaz for his defense.
2. If the team isn’t winning, holes will open up. If Damon, McLouth and Diaz are all sporting OBP’s over .800, there should be no question that Heyward stays in Triple-A. You don’t replace a guy that’s getting on base 80% of the time. Realistically though, their OBP’s will more likely be in the .360 range. Even the most optimistic projection I’ve seen for Jason Heyward places him at an OPS in the .830s (that’s Bill James, whose system is notorious for overhyping prospects). So if Damon, McLouth and Diaz are all posting wOBAs in the .350s, and the team is winning…well, sorry Jason. More development can’t hurt.
You bring defense into the equation, but he won’t replace McLouth in center, so that’s irrelevant. In your scenario, sure…maybe Heyward would be superior to Damon or Diaz, if everything goes just right for Heyward. (Keep in mind that the chances that everything goes right for Damon AND Diaz AND Heyward is miniscule.) But it’s not like having Damon and Diaz with .350+ wOBAs is BAD (they’d still be 2-3 WAR players), AND you’ve avoided the risk that Heyward isn’t ready AND you’ve gained an extra year of team control over a future superstar. Excuse me if I miss the downside.
Then, all it takes, as I said, is one injury, one slump, and Heyward will steal somebody’s job, if he truly is 100% ready to go.
The extra year of team control doesn’t happen Opening Day. If you let him stay in the minors until sometime in June, you can gain an ENTIRE extra year of control on the back end. At the end of the 2015 season, he’ll have:
If called up Opening Day: six years of service, enough to qualify for free agency
If called up in June: five years and, say, 120 days of service, enough to qualify for his third and final year of arbitration
That makes a HUGE difference, and if all the ML OFs are performing, you’ve got an excuse to leave him down that has nothing to do with finances.
Finally, read carefully what I wrote about Gwinnett’s profits: that’s not a reason to keep him down, but it is a reason why it can’t hurt to keep him down IF all the major-league OFs are performing (which, in all likelihood, will not be the case, since someone will get hurt or underperform).
tgthree - January 14, 2010
UZR also takes arm into account
acie4mvp - January 14, 2010
Umm...
Sorry, but no, the Super Two deadline is not day two of the season, or even the end of April.
MichaelProcton - January 16, 2010
I think you're more down on Schafer than you should be.
As far as we know, he was 100% healthy for about a week of the regular season. SSS, but from ST through that week, he was a more than competent starting-level MLB OF.
MichaelProcton - January 16, 2010
Why? Melky is better and cheaper.
And really feel bad for LaRoche. He’s a better player than that, and probably should have signed with San Fran.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
If the Giants wanted a guy to hit in the middle of their order, why did they choose Huff over Adam?
justincredubil02 - January 14, 2010
Adam turned down their offer of 2/17M.
ChrisK562 - January 14, 2010
Gracias. I bet he regrets that one now…
justincredubil02 - January 14, 2010
indeed
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
ha
Those cream-coloured jerseys the Giants/Philthies wear make me feel like I’m staring at the sun.
I mean, they may have been the shit back in 1912, but, yeah. No.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
nice
i get to see Roachy and KJ now!
Scott Coleman - January 14, 2010 via mobile
Wow, the LaRoche deal was only for $4.5 million. He looks pretty bad now considering he initially wanted 3/30 and turned down 2/17 from the Giants. If Damon’s price comes down that much, then I wouldn’t mind seeing us sign him.
ajones2522 - January 14, 2010
Adam must be in denial about his “first half numbers.” That was unbelievable that he didn’t sign with the Giants. They are a club to keep an eye on this year.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
I’m shocked. The Braves could have afforded that price, but I do understand that to get players to accept the reality of a pay cut, sometimes they have to change teams. I guess we have a new trend in baseball where free agency isn’t quite so lucrative to an unlucky few. Last year we also had some players who had to back track on their salary demands and ultimately take what they can get.
Zontar - January 14, 2010
They’re still millionares, bro. We’re talking about, “how many millions,” here. But yeah, turning down that deal with the Giants was mindless.
Chief Noc-A-Homa - January 14, 2010
It seems ridiculous, but maybe...
…LaRoche figures that he can finally hit in a hitter’s park in Arizona, and then become a free agent next year when more money is available. I would guess that the deal includes a provision that they cannot offer him arbitration if he ends up Class A.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
exactly
It would not surprise me if he turned down a 2 year deal below his annual salary goal and took a 1 year deal to run head long into free agency next year. Its a calculated risk, but one that could pay off.
hollerin' brave - January 14, 2010 via mobile
Maybe there are a lot less hunting opportunities in San Fran. Who knows. I’d fire his agent if he’s the one who said to turn it down, we can get more.
Sparhawk - January 14, 2010
Actually, it appears the deal was $4M for 2010 and a team option for 2011 at $8M with a $2M buyout. So, either $12M/2 or $6M/1.
Yakker - January 14, 2010
Definitely should've taken San Fran...
hitting behind Sandoval would have been nice, and with Lincecum/Cain, you know you’ll always be in the playoff chase.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
Pac Bell kills LHB power. AZ inflates it.
Yakker - January 15, 2010
But with the team option he still makes guaranteed less...
I think Arizona would be perfect for Damon. But as they currently stand, having LaRoche behind Sandoval and ahead of Derosa would be nice. And as I say, so long as Lincecum and Cain are starting 40% of their games, they will be a playoff contender.
Mr. Sanchez - January 15, 2010
According to MLB Trade Rumors
We may be the only one’s in the bidding.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2010/01/braves-still-pursuing-johnny-damon.html
The Giants appear to be out for Damon now that they’ve added Aubrey Huff, and we learned Tuesday that a Yankees reunion is unlikely. Scott Boras is going to have to cook up a mystery team if he’s going to get the Braves to overpay for Damon. The Royals and Padres might be looking to add an outfielder, but Damon is an unlikely fit for either club.
Mike Kerns - January 14, 2010
Random thoughts
The fact that LaRoche ended up signing for 1yr./4.5mil makes me feel even worse about this offseason. Having said that, I still like the Glaus signing, I just hope he can play 135 games or so.
The DBacks got LaRoche and KJ for a total investment of 6.5 mil? Somebody(and it ain’t Wren) is gunning for GM of the Year in 2010.
If we’re already 20 games out by June, I already know what team I’ll be following when I can no longer stomach the thought of watching another Braves game.(And if you don’t think it can happen, you’re kidding yourself. We might be very good this year, but more injuries to guys with bad injury histories will crush us and we may end up fighting the Natinals for last place.)
Damon would be an improvement over Melky, sure, but no one else in our OF. I see no point is signing him, even at his “reduced rate”. At this point, I say dump Melky to the Cubs or whoever else will take his salary and give us a few bats and a bag of balls for him, and lets let Schafer and Heyward do their thing. Maybe we can bring BJones back is the Royals haven’t already got him.
If Wren is going to sign another outfielder, lets just take another injury risk and get Xavier Nady.
Rhyno18 - January 14, 2010
Huh?
Wait so Frank Wren was supposed to sit around and wait for all the FA’s to sign and pick from who’s left at bargains? No way at the beginning of the offseason that LaRoche was signing for 4.5 mil he was seeking 30mil over 3 years. We learned our lesson last year in waiting on FA’s to drop in price we ended up with Garrett Anderson.
To be honest im surprised we got Glaus at the cost we did.
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
LaRoche’s deal actually is more like $6M/year.
Yakker - January 14, 2010
Umm...
We won’t be 20 games out by September. Go ahead and cheer on the DIamondbacks if you want, but I’m confident this team will compete for the division, not just a playoff spot.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
We avoided arbitration with Melky by signing him for $3.1M. He made $1.4M last year.
jack dein - January 14, 2010
The Yankees are also paying $500K of it.
jack dein - January 14, 2010
Not really...
they just sent us $500,000. That could be used to off set Melky’s salary, or pay Dunn all year, or Hanson all year, or anyone really.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
wow
sucks for adam. He should have took that Giants offer. Or at least waited on it instead of all out rejecting it. The Diamondbacks look to be pretty solid next year. Upton and LaRoche should make a decent middle of the lineup with KJ in there somewhere. Their rotation is also pretty good to if Webb comes back healthy.
For some reason though i just see them at the deadline trading everyone. LaRoche, KJ, Webb, Haren, E. Jackson. Basically anyone they wont be able to retain past this season
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
oh yea
and if we can get Damon for 4-5 mil that wouldnt be to bad. Lets the team put Heyward in AAA for a bit. If he is doing great in ST we could see either Diaz or Melky traded.
Hopefully he leads off tho and pushes McLouth down in the lineup
Damon
Prado
Chip
Glaus
Big Mac
Esco
Lil Mac
Diaz/Melk
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
Melky has nothing to do with Heyward or Damon.
I don’t know why people keep saying this. Melky is the fourth OF and fits that role very nicely. Diaz and Damon do not; they cannot play centerfield and are not switch hitters. If we sign Damon, it means that (barring a major injury to Damon or Diaz), Heyward stays down all year or we are forced to trade Diaz for whatever someone will give us for him.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
ugh
i clearly said a trade of Melky OR Diaz. It honestly depends on what the team plans to do and who they would prefer to keep. Heck they could trade both and bring up blanco and save 5 mil
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
I know you clearly said Melky or Diaz.
I am saying no, you have to trade Diaz. Melky is the fourth OF and fairly irrelevant to the discussion of the starting jobs. He fits nicely in that role and it really doesn’t matter who is starting. When you say trade Melky or Diaz, that means you think we could just trade Melky in that situation. I don’t see how that works. Either you relegate Diaz to a bench role (neither Damon nor Heyward will be platooned) which he is not as well suited as Melky (b/c he can’t play center) or you have to move him.
My sole point is that Damon is not a Melky replacement. He is a Diaz replacement. If you (or whoever) is down on Diaz and don’t think he should be a starter, then this signing would make sense. Otherwise, it doesn’t. Melky has nothing to do with it.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
Trading Diaz is a bad idea. The guy hit over .300 last year and if given the AB’s that Damon had last year he will probably hit as many HR’s as him. If they do have to make a trade I would get rid of Melky simply because it frees up more money for the Braves. Diaz is a bargain at his current pay.
rcates - January 14, 2010
however
the team will likely never give diaz that chance. If the roster stays how it is now and we have Melky in LF and Diaz in RF then he will get a time to shine until Heyward is ready but if Heyward breaks camp he will never get the chance
drumzalicious - January 15, 2010
They GAVE him his chance.
He flopped in ’08.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
Or he will probably fall apart and hit nowhere near .300 in playing every day and not regularly getting the platoon advantage.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
I understand your logic and honestly if we sign damon and break camp with Heyward i would trade both.
drumzalicious - January 15, 2010
It's funny that Cabrera is irrelevant to a discussion of starting jobs...
Given that he’s listed as the starter in LF on the official depth chart. Or maybe you’d prefer Hinske. Infante?
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
if healthy
that’s sexy.
Scott Coleman - January 14, 2010 via mobile
indeed.
Just the fact that we can push McLouth down in the lineup deepens it quite a bit and gives him the opportunity to produce more runs. Although to be honest i would switch him and McCann for lineup consistency
drumzalicious - January 14, 2010
Not to mention the very real possibility of Jay-Hey hitting somewhere in that lineup as well.
pancanbra - January 14, 2010
Damon has had an obp no better than McLouth
in 3 of the last 4 years. With less power and less speed, why is he a better leadoff option?
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
The only difference between Johnny Damon and McLouth is that Damon has been caught stealing at a higher percentage than McLouth.
Other than that I didnt say he was better i said that it allows us to put McLouth’s power lower in the lineup to bring in some more runs.
drumzalicious - January 15, 2010
But moving McLouth lower means someone moves out...
whether its opening day or July 1st, I’ll take McLouth leading off with Heyward lower in the order vs. Damon on top with McLouth in Heyward’s spot hitting 7th.
Mr. Sanchez - January 15, 2010
yes
that would mean a likely platoon of Melky and Diaz in LF or just an outright trade of one of them. Personally if Heyward breaks camp as the starter and we sign Damon i would trade Melky AND Diaz and just utilize Blanco as the 4th OF’er/Late inning defensive replacement. Trading both of them would essentially neutralize the weight of Damon’s contract if he is signed for our price range 4-5 mil because Diaz and Cabrera make about 5.5mil combined therefore we would still have some money at the deadline to play with.
drumzalicious - January 15, 2010
Actually...
I know they get another arbitration year out of KJ. Not sure about the others.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
I haven't saw for how much but
If he wanted a 1 year deal why didn’t we sign him?
bravesforever16 - January 14, 2010 via mobile
By the time his demands came down...
…we already had Glaus, even cheaper. And, if healthy, Glaus is probably a better fit, being right-handed. That being said, given LaRoche’s relative health, he is probably the better bet.
cavebird - January 14, 2010
…and better defensive option.
pancanbra - January 14, 2010
Glaus @ $1.75M plus incentives >>>> LaRoche @ $6M
Yakker - January 14, 2010
Ugh, Damon
He’ll end up being this year’s Garret Anderson, mark my words. Assuming that Schafer and Heyward are both fairly close to ML-ready, I think we’ve got plenty of organizational depth in the OF.
Hinske works as a platoon partner, and Melky can play the role of a decent defensive sub. There’s seriously no role for Damon unless we’re looking to trade Matt Diaz.
Bronn - January 14, 2010
To me, signing Damon would just be a huge mistake. I don’t see it at all and think DOB is either getting bad intel or full of shit. Or maybe both.
fandave - January 14, 2010
I think he might similarly underperform his contract...
But he’ll be better overall than Anderson. Certainly a positive WAR player.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
i think signing Johnny Damon would be a great thing. you can sign him start him in left move melky to right and trade matt d. somewhere. cause it you have damon and melky in the lineup hitting and startin they both have championship calibur dudes so that is a sign that we will win a championship
ADog - January 14, 2010
"proven winners"...
Joe Morgan would love us
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
Agreed with Melky so why mess around with another old, Boras client.
I think this is nothing but typical Scott Boras “BS” and trying to create a market for a player that nobody really is looking at for his price and age. Diaz, Nate and Melky is fine with me on opening day b/c Heyward is going to be on this team before the All-star break and if he has a great spring training he is going to start in RF anyway and we are going to do with him and Hanson the same thing we did with Mcann and try and buyout their arb years b/c both are the real deal.
Damon the market has all but disappeared for you buddy so if you wanna sign for like a 1-2 million then maybe I would half way consider it but not for 4-5 million no way sorry pocket the cash and wait for better opitions down the road such as the trade deadline.
Plus Diaz has earned a starting role after his play last season.
Holty_Panthers_Fan - January 14, 2010
Diaz has earned nothing.
He’s never been asked to take no anything close to the workload of a full-time player over the course of more than a month or so at a time. I think he’s a great player, but he’s certainly aided by rest and platooning.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
My main concern with Damon is the price.
So if he has to eat some crow and take a $4MM deal, I think i could work. I just don’t know if I could stand watching his epileptic batting stance and horrible-looking swing all season.
FineHamAbounds - January 14, 2010
Even at that, is he worth it here?
compared to what else we have that can do the same thing he does, and probably do it better?
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
No. Damon is not the answer to any question the Braves may have.
fandave - January 14, 2010
The main reason it would be worth it
Bobby would actually bat him leadoff and shift McLouth down in the order. Right now, our probable batting order doesn’t emphasize OBP in the leadoff spot as much as it should.
FineHamAbounds - January 14, 2010
And Damon's OBP isn't much better than McLouth...
considering his reduction in power and speed. And moving McLouth down means likely Heyward moves out, while Heyward would be much better defensively and at least as good, if not better offensively. Or if it’s Cabrera for a few months until Heyward, you still get the upgrade once Heyward arrives and Cabrera’s improved defense balances Damon’s better offense.
Mr. Sanchez - January 14, 2010
I’m just saying that if it’s cheap, it couldn’t hurt. Damon’s better than Cabrera, if only by a little (arm aside).
FineHamAbounds - January 14, 2010
Since when do power and speed factor into OBP?
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
Yes.
He’s absolutely a hitting upgrade over any of our current OFs, and he’s an overall upgrade over Cabrera and Diaz.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
Well we could
Seeing that Eric Byrnes could be the man who gets cut to make room for Laroche and could be had for league minimum assuming that he is completely healthy. I would rather take a shot with Byrnes a scrappy type player that could give you 20-30 HR if he can stay on the field. I rather take that chance than potentially spend 4-6M on damon….Plus we still would have plenty of cash on hand for any deals that may be needed midseason. If Heyward is ready in ST than we can decide on who to ship out Diaz/Melky/Brynes before the season starts….
Hanson-Ace - January 15, 2010
If we’re going to take another injury risk outfielder, I advocate signing Nady over Byrnes. At least with Nady we can hope surgery has fixed his problems.
For a league minimum deal I wouldn’t really be against Byrnes(especially not knowing really what kind of deal Nady is asking for). I just wouldn’t really have high hopes that Byrnes could get out of spring training without blowing a hamstring.
Rhyno18 - January 15, 2010
I like the Eric Byrnes idea, I think the Braves could get him at the league minimum, and AZ would eat the rest of his contract.
ChrisK562 - January 15, 2010
Byrnes "scrappiness" doesn't change the fact...
that he’ll never hit 30. His career season (four years ago) had him at 26. He’s also never OPSed over 814. That’s ugly.
MichaelProcton - January 17, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Talking Chop to post a comment.