Warming up to Kotchman

When I got the call from MLT saying we had dealt Teixeira for Casey Kotchman and a minor league pitcher (Steve Marek), my first reaction was, "That's it?" And then, "who is Marek?" I mean Teixeira is a top 5 first baseman, especially when you factor in his defense, couldn't we get more? But the more I look at the trade, the more it makes sense.

Teixeira's contract runs out at the end of this year, and, since he is a Scott Boras client, he will not sign a new contract until the offseason when Boras can use offers from other teams to raise the asking price. Some offseasons that is not much of a threat, but both the Yankees and Mets will be losing their under-performing first basemen (Giambi and Delgado respectively) after this year. Therefore, the asking price for Teixeira should skyrocket. Rumor has it that the initial numbers from Boras will be 10 years and $230 million. As much as I love Teixeira, I can't love that price tag.

We could have just let Teixeira leave in free agency and picked up the two compensatory picks in the draft, but anyone drafted would have needed a couple of years before they could contribute on the major league level. That would have sabotaged any plans to try and compete next year, which is a must considering the age of some of our key players (Smoltz and Chipper most notably).

So in return for half a year of Teixeira, we get Kotchman and Marek. Kotchman is still young (25), plays great defense, has a good bat, and, most importantly, is still under our control until 2011. While he is a downgrade in terms of power, Kotchman gives us an opportunity to plug in an affordable, major league ready first baseman (of which we do not have in the minors), use the roughly $22 million saved by not signing Teixeira to help upgrade other areas of need, and still contend next year.

Plus it helps that most of the comments from Angels fans were that they were sad to see Kotchman go. I think that's a good sign.

Teixeira sweepstakes

Finally (and unfortunately possibly too late) the Braves have admitted what the rest of the league has known for some time: This season just isn't meant to be. Which means that Wren & Co. have begun the Teixeira sweepstakes.

Now it's widely known that if we keep him and he leaves via Free Agency we'd get 2 draft picks (a 1st and a sandwhich between the first and second round). So the Braves' arguement (and I agree) is that if we are trading him anywhere, we have to get *at least* 2 top prospects. After all, whichever team trades for him would get those picks when he departs after the season.

The best "fit" would be Arizona. They are unwilling to give up Conor Jackson (who should be the key cog in the deal for the Braves). They would rather give back Chad Tracey (a decent player but not someone young enough to control for a while and realistically we know his ceiling). The D-Bags. I mean D-Backs, point to Conor's superior OPS as reason not to trade for Tex. What the Braves SHOULD be replying to them is: "yeah, that's for the first half. Tex always blows up in the second half and we both know it." There's not a GM in the league that wouldn't give up two Conor Jackson's for a Tex second half. Arizona is also seeking some bullpen help. The best fit for both teams might be more of a blockbuster trade along the lines of: Tex, Ohman, and JoJo Reyes for Conor Jackson, Micah Owings, and 2 other minor leaguers. The D-Backs get a solid LHP for the pen, a stud 1B for the stretch run, and a possible future starter (not to mention the 3-4 draft picks they get when Tex and Ohman leave via F.A.) and the Braves get a solid firstbaseman for the future, a #3 starter and some developmental pieces.

That probably makes too much sense. We'll probably settle for Chad Tracey or some package of junk. I hope we don't. I'd rather just take our 2 picks and move on than settle for the pu-pu platter.

This isn't Football

So I think plate collisions should be banned in baseball. Obviously this post is inspired by the pictured collision that happened on Sunday in the Braves game. Don't get me wrong though, I have no hard feelings for Shane Victorino. Under the current rules, I think he made a legitimate play... I just don't think it should be legitimate.

I know that baseball purists will cry out and complain that changing this rule would destroy the hustling spirit of baseball, or something to that effect, but plate collisions are a major health risk for catchers. Half of the time they either don't see it coming or don't have enough time to brace themselves, while the runner has a full head of steam. On Sunday the throw was coming from right field and McCann got hit right as he was turning to Victorino.

Additionally, due to the new hockey-style catcher masks, catchers have no protection for their heads. The runner has more protection since he's still got his helmet on. I don't think Victorino was head-hunting, but due to McCann's quick turn and the fact that he was crouching Victorino hit him straight in the head. Even if the runner hits the catcher below the head, the catcher has a major risk of falling back and slamming his head on the ground.

As the NFL is discovering, head injuries are serious and can have some major lasting implications. Just because baseball has less contact doesn't mean that the MLB shouldn't be concerned with head injuries as well.

The State of Atlanta Sports

Editor's Note: This was written a few weeks ago and the power tripped at my office. I thought the post was lost and gone forever. Forunately, EggHead saw it saved somewhere I hadn't looked. Thanks to the Egghead. Unfortunately, the Hawks paragraph is now out of date. I'm posting it for posterity as I orininally wrote it. My new thought is that I'm happy for Childress that he was smart enough to outwit crappy management. I'm sad for my fan-dom but I like seeing smart players thumb their nose at a bad system.

That's the reason it's been quiet around these parts (well, that and the sad sad knowledge that no one reads this).

The Braves remain barely afloat in the standings. They have a profound ability this season to spoil good starts with horrible hitting and an amazing ability to make mistakes defensively late. The Franceour drama certainly didn't help morale and it seems like we play very passionless. Perhaps it is the spate of injuries that have derailed the team and their morale. Regardless, game after game the team seems to go into "hibernation mode" (as many bloggers have called it) and have an inability to score runs late. Overall they are a miserable team to try to watch play. I can only see so many McCann GIDPs, Chipper walks followed by strikeouts, and Acosta-s (that is, coming into a close game and figurately crapping yourself on the mound). I've refused to post about them for this long mainly because I'm lazy and it hurts to watch. That being said I am ready for the mirage that we aren't rebuilding to end and for the team to commit to the effort and trade some of what we have to get pieces for the future. We can accelerate our progress by moving Tex and getting something further along the development chain than the 2 first round picks we'd net if he left as a FA. We should be able to move Diaz (once he comes back) and Kotsay to contenders for some young 2nd tier prospects. Baseball is different than other sports in that you never really know who is good until they hit the big leagues. Sometimes getting 10 players and hoping 1 or 2 pan out is better than betting the house with 1 or 2 in a big trade (ask the Indians how they feel about Andy Marte right now. Or the A's about Dan Meyer).

Sadly, the most news about Atlanta sports lately is around the Hakws. Re-signing the Joshes is the most important item on the agenda (and one that I think is pretty close to happening). I don't think we had any intentions of letting Smith go to Philly and I have a gut feeling that we knew more than we let on about the Sixers looking to Brand first. The more important thing in these drawn out discussion is that our ownership mess is still unresolved. Even though http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3480488 the NBA is willing to step in and assist the Sonics new ownership group, we still get the shaft and are left to have courts and appeals run their course. It's frustrating for the team to have the mess but is ridiculous that the NBA won't step in and help clean it up (after all, they approved this ownership group to begin with).

The best news for the Falcons is that there is no news. Nothing good, nothing bad is perfect for an offseason after all the issues of the last 2 years.

Fortunately, the Dawgs season begins in less than 2 months and the fight for the National Championship begins.

Wait, what exactly did he save?

I ask this question because Will Ohman got a save last night for throwing two pitches and getting one out. That's it. Did he do more than Manny Acosta who got two outs in the ninth? Nope, but he got the save and not Acosta.

Seriously, MLB needs to change its rules on what constitutes a save or at least how it is implemented. It's the most useless stat out there. Rule 10.20 in the Official Rule Book states:
"Credit a pitcher with a save when he meets all three of the following conditions:
(1) He is the finishing pitcher in a game won by his club; and
(2) He is not the winning pitcher; and
(3) He qualifies under one of the following conditions:
- (a) He enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches for at least one inning; or
- (b) He enters the game, regardless of the count, with the potential tying run either on base, or at bat, or on deck (that is, the potential tying run is either already on base or is one of the first two batsmen he faces; or
- (c) He pitches effectively for at least three innings. No more than one save may be credited in each game."

The first condition, I think, is one of the problems. Who cares if he's the finishing pitcher? Maybe they need to modify it and say they have to get at least one out in the ninth. You're basically awarding a stat not based on achievement, but on the manager's whim.

(3)(a) gets me too. Why three runs? Why should you get credit for holding a three run lead in one inning? That should be expected. Are we going to start awarding semi-wins to starters for every scoreless inning? This one drives me nuts especially for guys like Todd Jones or Joe Borowski. They come in with a 3-run lead, give up two runs, escape by the skin of their teeth, and they get a "save."

(3)(b) makes sense however. If you come in with the game on the line with the potential of someone tying the game or getting the lead and you finish the game off, then hats off to you. You saved the game. Here's your save... right next to your gold star. Todd Jones, you go sit in the corner with the dunce hat.