Braves 2010 season thread

[JasonEvans]

This whole Troy Glaus thing might just work out after all.

He is now hitting .283 with 10 homers and a league-leading 42 RBIs. Not bad for a dude everyone thought was washed up and to whom the Braves are paying less than $2 million this year. WOW, biggest veteran bargain in baseball. Of course, I suspect he is going to earn a lot of the $2.25 million in performance and roster bonuses that are part of the contract. Still, you generally get a backup middle infielder for $4 million a year, not one of the top offensive 1B in the NL!

Oh, by the way, the Braves won again tonight. 4-3 over the Dodgers. It was a road win against a high-quality team.

Glaus, Wagner, Saito... we all freaked out about the aged roster moves. Ummm, maybe Frank Wren knew what he was doing.

--Jason "who is having a better season so far, Glaus or Wagner?" Evans

[northernduke]

I for one am pleased with Glaus' performance thus far. Slow start, but he's turning it on now. Kind of like Teixiera once was for us...

Like I said at the beginning of the season, 25 HRs and 90+ RBIs from our 1B would be huge.

Can Infante play center field? I kid, I kid...

[Jarhead]

ESPN Magazine has a story up on Chipper Jones that's worth a read. I remember when he was drafted, and I have enjoyed watching him play ever since. What a nice article, totally non-controversial.

[Olympic Fan]

ESPN Magazine has a story up on Chipper Jones that's worth a read. I remember when he was drafted, and I have enjoyed watching him play ever since. What a nice article, totally non-controversial.

Great article ... a great summary of what a great player Chipper has been for his career. The only thing I wish could be explored a little more was the decision to draft Chipper No. 1 instead of Todd Van Poppel. As I remember it, the consensus was the Von Poppel was the top pick, but he didn't want to play for such a dismal franchise, so he claimed that he wouldn't sign with the Braves -- insisting that he would go to college instead. In the end, he was drafted later in the first round by Oakland, then riding high with the Bash brothers.

Van Poppel didn't mind signing with the A's and except for a token appearance in 1991, he reached the bigs in 1993 -- the same year Chipper essentially made a token appearance. He was 6-6 that season and won seven games (with 10 losses) the next year. That was the high-level mark of his career -- he finished with 40 wins.

Chipper, as Tim says, is a first ballot Hall of Fame. He calls him among the top five third-baseman of all time. I hope that view holds -- I keep saying that Chipper has the best OPS of any third-baseman in history (that will change if Alex Rodriguex plays a couple of more years at third ... right now, he still has more career games at short). Chipper also has the No. 2 career OPS-plus (a better historical messure) among third-basemen (behind Mike Schmidt).

Is he top five alltime? Well, he's always been a good defender, but not a great one. And, as I said, he's the second-best offensive player at third in baseball history (at the moment). He's played on as many championship teams as anybody on this list. He's won just one MVP, but he's finioshed in the top 10 six times (and nine times in the top 12).

I'll save the research for win he retires, but off the top of my head, I'd say that Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson almost certainly rate ahead of him. But I can see Chipper in the next group with Eddie Mathews, George Brett, Pie Traynor. I never know how to rate Jimmy Collins, the greatest of the deadball third basemen (when the position was regarded much as we regard shortstops today).

But top five seems reasonable. It would be great for Chipper to close his career by helping the Braves go out a winner one more time (last night's 7-run rally in the seventh -- two more in the eighth -- was great to wake up ... that's 2-1 on the road trip!).

[JasonEvans]

On ESPN today Tim Kurkjian said he regarded Chipper as the best #1 pick in MLB draft history. He clarified this by saying the fact that Chipper had played his entire career with the team that drafted him made him such a great draft pick. He also said that he rates Chipper as the 5th best 3B in baseball history and a lock to be a first-ballot HOFer.

So far, the Braves are 2-2 on this challenging and long road trip. Not bad. I'll take it.

--Jason "boy, would I love for Chipper to get on a run!" Evans

[northernduke]

I'm satisfied with a split on the road against a team that is 14-5 in their last 19 games. Granted taking one of the 2 1-run losses would have been great, but I am happy with the start of the road trip.

[rasputin]

Great article ... a great summary of what a great player Chipper has been for his career. The only thing I wish could be explored a little more was the decision to draft Chipper No. 1 instead of Todd Van Poppel. As I remember it, the consensus was the Von Poppel was the top pick, but he didn't want to play for such a dismal franchise, so he claimed that he wouldn't sign with the Braves -- insisting that he would go to college instead. In the end, he was drafted later in the first round by Oakland, then riding high with the Bash brothers.

Van Poppel didn't mind signing with the A's and except for a token appearance in 1991, he reached the bigs in 1993 -- the same year Chipper essentially made a token appearance. He was 6-6 that season and won seven games (with 10 losses) the next year. That was the high-level mark of his career -- he finished with 40 wins.

Chipper, as Tim says, is a first ballot Hall of Fame. He calls him among the top five third-baseman of all time. I hope that view holds -- I keep saying that Chipper has the best OPS of any third-baseman in history (that will change if Alex Rodriguex plays a couple of more years at third ... right now, he still has more career games at short). Chipper also has the No. 2 career OPS-plus (a better historical messure) among third-basemen (behind Mike Schmidt).

Is he top five alltime? Well, he's always been a good defender, but not a great one. And, as I said, he's the second-best offensive player at third in baseball history (at the moment). He's played on as many championship teams as anybody on this list. He's won just one MVP, but he's finioshed in the top 10 six times (and nine times in the top 12).

I'll save the research for win he retires, but off the top of my head, I'd say that Mike Schmidt and Brooks Robinson almost certainly rate ahead of him. But I can see Chipper in the next group with Eddie Mathews, George Brett, Pie Traynor. I never know how to rate Jimmy Collins, the greatest of the deadball third basemen (when the position was regarded much as we regard shortstops today).

But top five seems reasonable. It would be great for Chipper to close his career by helping the Braves go out a winner one more time (last night's 7-run rally in the seventh -- two more in the eighth -- was great to wake up ... that's 2-1 on the road trip!).

Schmidt and Brett have to be ranked 1 and 2, and in that order. After that is where I see the cluster of Brooks, Eddie Mathews, Traynor, Chipper.

It is hard to rate Jimmy Collins. It should be kept in mind, when thinking about a guy like Collins (or, more importantly, a guy like Traynor), that until the double play became entrenched as an important aspect of defense, second base was regarded as an offense-first position, and third base as defense-first, the reverse of what it is today.

All of this, as is pointed out above, depends on A-Rod being still a shortstop in historical terms. And it should be remembered that Chipper hasn't always played third.

[Olympic Fan]

Schmidt and Brett have to be ranked 1 and 2, and in that order. After that is where I see the cluster of Brooks, Eddie Mathews, Traynor, Chipper.

It is hard to rate Jimmy Collins. It should be kept in mind, when thinking about a guy like Collins (or, more importantly, a guy like Traynor), that until the double play became entrenched as an important aspect of defense, second base was regarded as an offense-first position, and third base as defense-first, the reverse of what it is today.

All of this, as is pointed out above, depends on A-Rod being still a shortstop in historical terms. And it should be remembered that Chipper hasn't always played third.

I have a hard time understanding why you rate Brett as clearly superior to Chipper and Brooks.

Head-to-head, Chipper is superior to Brett in every significant batting category: average (.306 to .305), OBP (.406 to .369), SLUG .537 to .487), OPS (.943 to .855) and OPS plus (143 to 135).

Brett won one MVP and finished in the top 10 five times. Chipper won one MVP and finished in the top 10 SIX times.

Brett had three seasons with better than a 1.000 OPS ... Chipper had five seasons with better than a 1.000 OPS.

Brett was a slightly better fielder (one gold glove ... Chipper actually has a better career fielding average at third).

Yes, Chipper played a few games other than third ... so did Brett. In fact, Chipper has so far played 1,730 at third to 1,692 for Brett. Chipper had 364 games in the outfield (and 49 at SS). Brett had 506 games as a DH and 461 at first base.

I don't see how anybody can look at those numbers and think Brett is No. 2 on the third-base list. His very slight edge defensively can't come close to overcoming Chipper's much bigger edge offensively (and the fact that he played more games at third).

If you're going to try and use Brett's slight defensive edge to rate him over Chipper, then I don't see how you can't use Brooks Robinson's much larger defensive edge to rate him over Brett. And for the record, Brooks beats them both in the MVP voting with one MVP and seven top 10 finishes.

Don't get me wrong, George Brett was a great player. But I can't see how he rates No. 2 on the alltime list.

I certainly do agree with the point that A-Roid is the wildcard in the mix. He's one of those guys like Musial (LF or 1B?) and Banks (SS or 1B?) who split their career at two positions -- rare for a great player. Right now, A-Roid has 1272 at SS and 921 at third. The usual practice is to rate a player at the position he played most. Right now, he's on the shortstop list ... but we'll see where he ends up.

[rasputin]

I have a hard time understanding why you rate Brett as clearly superior to Chipper and Brooks.

Head-to-head, Chipper is superior to Brett in every significant batting category: average (.306 to .305), OBP (.406 to .369), SLUG .537 to .487), OPS (.943 to .855) and OPS plus (143 to 135).

Brett won one MVP and finished in the top 10 five times. Chipper won one MVP and finished in the top 10 SIX times.

Brett had three seasons with better than a 1.000 OPS ... Chipper had five seasons with better than a 1.000 OPS.

Brett was a slightly better fielder (one gold glove ... Chipper actually has a better career fielding average at third).

Yes, Chipper played a few games other than third ... so did Brett. In fact, Chipper has so far played 1,730 at third to 1,692 for Brett. Chipper had 364 games in the outfield (and 49 at SS). Brett had 506 games as a DH and 461 at first base.

I don't see how anybody can look at those numbers and think Brett is No. 2 on the third-base list. His very slight edge defensively can't come close to overcoming Chipper's much bigger edge offensively (and the fact that he played more games at third).

If you're going to try and use Brett's slight defensive edge to rate him over Chipper, then I don't see how you can't use Brooks Robinson's much larger defensive edge to rate him over Brett. And for the record, Brooks beats them both in the MVP voting with one MVP and seven top 10 finishes.

Don't get me wrong, George Brett was a great player. But I can't see how he rates No. 2 on the alltime list.

I certainly do agree with the point that A-Roid is the wildcard in the mix. He's one of those guys like Musial (LF or 1B?) and Banks (SS or 1B?) who split their career at two positions -- rare for a great player. Right now, A-Roid has 1272 at SS and 921 at third. The usual practice is to rate a player at the position he played most. Right now, he's on the shortstop list ... but we'll see where he ends up.

As to Brett versus the others, that's my seat-of-the-pants analysis. After your post, however, I checked them on baseball-reference.com; the career Wins Above Replacement value is listed as Brett, 85, Chipper 78, Brooks 69.1.

But that's not why I listed them that way. Brett was a dominant player, and clearly the best on his team. I don't think you can say the same about either Chipper or Brooks. Brett was the face of the Kansas City Royals, a very good team at the time. I don't see Chipper as the face of those Braves teams (not with that pitching staff), and I don't see Brooks as the face of the O's, at least not once Frank Robinson arrived. (Yes, I know, Brooks was an MVP in 1964 or thereabouts).

One thing that muddies the discussion is these players' performance in postseason play: outstanding in the case of both Brooks and Brett, good in Chipper's case. Brooks' 1970 WS is legendary, and he was just as good in the ALCS that year. Brett once had three HR in an ALCS game (which his team lost).

As an aside, there are a couple of other split career at multiple position guys to consider in conncetion with the last part, although neither is of the caliber of a Musial: Pete Rose and Craig Biggio.

[Olympic Fan]

As to Brett versus the others, that's my seat-of-the-pants analysis. After your post, however, I checked them on baseball-reference.com; the career Wins Above Replacement value is listed as Brett, 85, Chipper 78, Brooks 69.1.

But that's not why I listed them that way. Brett was a dominant player, and clearly the best on his team. I don't think you can say the same about either Chipper or Brooks. Brett was the face of the Kansas City Royals, a very good team at the time. I don't see Chipper as the face of those Braves teams (not with that pitching staff), and I don't see Brooks as the face of the O's, at least not once Frank Robinson arrived. (Yes, I know, Brooks was an MVP in 1964 or thereabouts).

One thing that muddies the discussion is these players' performance in postseason play: outstanding in the case of both Brooks and Brett, good in Chipper's case. Brooks' 1970 WS is legendary, and he was just as good in the ALCS that year. Brett once had three HR in an ALCS game (which his team lost).

I see where you are coming from -- although the problem with using wins above replacement to justify putting Brett ahead of Chipper (not to mention Brooks) is that then you also have to concede that Brett is only fourth on the WAR list among third basemen (fifth if you count A-Roid). Do you really want to rank him behind Eddie Matthews (No. 2 on the WAR list) and Wade Boggs (No. 3)?

I've never been a big fan of WAR as a measurement of greatness. I mean as great as Stan Musial was, did he have more career value than Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle and Lou Gehrig? Does Mel Ott really rank ahead of Jimmie Foxx and Joe DiMaggio? Yaz ahead of Clemente? Phil Niekro ahead of Warren Spahn ... also ahead of Bob Gibson and Christy Mathewson?

I think it's an interesting, but very limited tool.

I don't see where claiming a player as "the face of the franchise" increases his value. Maybe postseason performance plays a factor, but you can't overrate it, otherwise you have to pick Yankees for all the top spots and dismiss postseason failures like Ted Williams. Brett was great in postseason in a limited sample -- Chipper's teams were in postseason a lot more often and had more success. His postseason stats are very good (.871 OPS) and his postseason team record 10-10 is a lot better than Brett's 3-6 postseason series record.

Was Chipper the face of the Braves? I agree that those teams -- which won a heck of a lot more than Brett's Royals -- were built on that great pitching trio of Maddox-Glavine-Smoltz. But it's equally clear that Chipper was the best everyday player on the best national league team of his era.

His measurable accomplishments are all better than Brett's. He was (slightly) but clearly more favored by the MVP voters of his era.

The only argument for Brett -- the WAR measure -- demands that you put Mathews and Boggs ahead of both of them. I can't see that.

[rasputin]

I see where you are coming from -- although the problem with using wins above replacement to justify putting Brett ahead of Chipper (not to mention Brooks) is that then you also have to concede that Brett is only fourth on the WAR list among third basemen (fifth if you count A-Roid). Do you really want to rank him behind Eddie Matthews (No. 2 on the WAR list) and Wade Boggs (No. 3)?

I've never been a big fan of WAR as a measurement of greatness. I mean as great as Stan Musial was, did he have more career value than Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle and Lou Gehrig? Does Mel Ott really rank ahead of Jimmie Foxx and Joe DiMaggio? Yaz ahead of Clemente? Phil Niekro ahead of Warren Spahn ... also ahead of Bob Gibson and Christy Mathewson?

I think it's an interesting, but very limited tool.

I don't see where claiming a player as "the face of the franchise" increases his value. Maybe postseason performance plays a factor, but you can't overrate it, otherwise you have to pick Yankees for all the top spots and dismiss postseason failures like Ted Williams. Brett was great in postseason in a limited sample -- Chipper's teams were in postseason a lot more often and had more success. His postseason stats are very good (.871 OPS) and his postseason team record 10-10 is a lot better than Brett's 3-6 postseason series record.

Was Chipper the face of the Braves? I agree that those teams -- which won a heck of a lot more than Brett's Royals -- were built on that great pitching trio of Maddox-Glavine-Smoltz. But it's equally clear that Chipper was the best everyday player on the best national league team of his era.

His measurable accomplishments are all better than Brett's. He was (slightly) but clearly more favored by the MVP voters of his era.

The only argument for Brett -- the WAR measure -- demands that you put Mathews and Boggs ahead of both of them. I can't see that.

I don't see the WAR measure as the "only" argument for Brett. And I agree that it is a limited tool, and I think it's because it over-rewards for longevity. That's how you get to a result like Ott over DiMaggio, Yaz over Clemente, and Knucksie over Gibson (all of which are absurd).

I also understand that we shouldn't overvalue postseason performance, especially in the case of someone like Ted Williams where the sample size is so small.

Anyway, I'll still take Brett. And I also think that the gap is pretty wide between Mike Schmidt and everybody else in this discussion (unless you get to A-Rod).

[Olympic Fan]

I don't see the WAR measure as the "only" argument for Brett. And I agree that it is a limited tool, and I think it's because it over-rewards for longevity. That's how you get to a result like Ott over DiMaggio, Yaz over Clemente, and Knucksie over Gibson (all of which are absurd).

I also understand that we shouldn't overvalue postseason performance, especially in the case of someone like Ted Williams where the sample size is so small.

Anyway, I'll still take Brett. And I also think that the gap is pretty wide between Mike Schmidt and everybody else in this discussion (unless you get to A-Rod).

We'll just agree to disagree ... actually, the only thing I was disagreeing with was your assumption that Brett was a clearcut No. 2 on then list. I like Brooks for that spot because his defense was light years beyond the other guys in the discussion (except Schmidt and he's No. 1 anyway).

That's why I also will still keep Schmidt at No. 1 even after A-Roid plays enough games to be a third baseman. Offensively, they are very close (once you make era adjustments). Defensively, Schmidt gets the edge. He was a superb defensive player, just a notch below Brooks.

A-Roid on the other hand, was a superb defensive shortstop, but he's been quite average at third. Considering the fact that he'll also have played barely half his career at third, I think Schmidt stays at No. 1 on the list -- although I agree that the gap narrows.

[Olympic Fan]

Well, yesterday the bats came through in the ninth. The Braves' bullpen blew a 7-2 lead at Arizona, but the offense added four in the ninth and Atlanta evened its road trip record to 4-4. Amazingly, Atlanta has stretched its lead in the NL East to 2.5 games -- although they are still up just one in the loss column on thje Phils (but have four more wins) and two on the Mets (with three more wins).

However, the next six games will be really tough -- three in Minnesota against a pretty good Twins team, followed by three back in Atlanta (finally!) against a very good Tampa team.

After that, the schedule eases off as KC comes to town.

I'd love to see tonight's matchup -- Hudson vs. Liriano.

[COYS]

Well, yesterday the bats came through in the ninth. The Braves' bullpen blew a 7-2 lead at Arizona, but the offense added four in the ninth and Atlanta evened its road trip record to 4-4. Amazingly, Atlanta has stretched its lead in the NL East to 2.5 games -- although they are still up just one in the loss column on thje Phils (but have four more wins) and two on the Mets (with three more wins).

However, the next six games will be really tough -- three in Minnesota against a pretty good Twins team, followed by three back in Atlanta (finally!) against a very good Tampa team.

After that, the schedule eases off as KC comes to town.

I'd love to see tonight's matchup -- Hudson vs. Liriano.

I would be very happy going 3-3 over the next six games. We've been a great home team, so hopefully we can keep that up as we will finally be getting a few more games back in Atlanta . . . oh yeah, and an off day wouldn't hurt, either.

[Olympic Fan]

I know that the Braves are currently atop the NL East, a game and a half ahead of the Mets and three and a half up on the Phillies (just two in the loss column, but a whopping five in the win column).

That surpasses all my preseason expections and with 40 percent of the season gone, it can't be considered a fluke. Some things have gone very well for the Braves (Haywood, Glaus, Prado, Wagner), but some have not (Chipper and McCann can hit better, Jurrjens has been out, Kawakami is winless in the rotation, Escobar has been hurt and/or below par, McLouth is under the Mendoza line). I can see where this team could get even better over the last 60 percent of the season.

The Braves are winding up a make-or-break 11-game road trip today and whatever happens in the final game at Minnesota, they'll still be in first place when they come home next week. We all said that they needed to go 6-5 on this trip ... they are 5-5 going into today's game.

So, obviously, winning the NL East is the first option.

But we all know that in this day and age, winning a wild card is essentially as good as winning a division. Right now, the Braves are engaged in a three-team battle for the NL East title (and the Marlins and Nats aren't all that far back). Finish first ... great.

But what if the Phillies -- still probably the most talented team in the division -- get hot and the Braves finish second in that NL East competition? What's the competition for the wild card look like?

Remember, Atlanta is 36-27 going into today's game.

The NL Central has two strong teams battling for the top. The Reds are in first and the Cardinals (at 34-28) are the same as the Mets and a game-and-a-half behind the Braves.

There are three contenders in the NL West. One will win the division ... the next best will be in the wild card race.

In fact, if the season ended this morning, Atlanta (36-27), Cincinnati (36-27)and the San Diego Padres (37-25) would be division champs and the LA Dodgers (36-26) would get the wild card, leaving the Mets (34-28), the Cards (34-28) and the Giants (34-27) on the outside looking in.

Certainly, there is plenty of time for those teams to make up grown. And the future is not forseeable -- everybody who had San Diego with the best record in the NL at this point, raise your hands!

[COYS]

I know that the Braves are currently atop the NL East, a game and a half ahead of the Mets and three and a half up on the Phillies (just two in the loss column, but a whopping five in the win column).

That surpasses all my preseason expections and with 40 percent of the season gone, it can't be considered a fluke. Some things have gone very well for the Braves (Haywood, Glaus, Prado, Wagner), but some have not (Chipper and McCann can hit better, Jurrjens has been out, Kawakami is winless in the rotation, Escobar has been hurt and/or below par, McLouth is under the Mendoza line). I can see where this team could get even better over the last 60 percent of the season.

The Braves are winding up a make-or-break 11-game road trip today and whatever happens in the final game at Minnesota, they'll still be in first place when they come home next week. We all said that they needed to go 6-5 on this trip ... they are 5-5 going into today's game.

So, obviously, winning the NL East is the first option.

But we all know that in this day and age, winning a wild card is essentially as good as winning a division. Right now, the Braves are engaged in a three-team battle for the NL East title (and the Marlins and Nats aren't all that far back). Finish first ... great.

But what if the Phillies -- still probably the most talented team in the division -- get hot and the Braves finish second in that NL East competition? What's the competition for the wild card look like?

Remember, Atlanta is 36-27 going into today's game.

The NL Central has two strong teams battling for the top. The Reds are in first and the Cardinals (at 34-28) are the same as the Mets and a game-and-a-half behind the Braves.

There are three contenders in the NL West. One will win the division ... the next best will be in the wild card race.

In fact, if the season ended this morning, Atlanta (36-27), Cincinnati (36-27)and the San Diego Padres (37-25) would be division champs and the LA Dodgers (36-26) would get the wild card, leaving the Mets (34-28), the Cards (34-28) and the Giants (34-27) on the outside looking in.

Certainly, there is plenty of time for those teams to make up grown. And the future is not forseeable -- everybody who had San Diego with the best record in the NL at this point, raise your hands!

I will be very interested to see what happens to the rotation when Jurrjens comes back in a few weeks. Medlen has been impressive ever since he moved to the bullpen to make way for Hanson in the rotation way back in last June. This season, save for one bad game, his success has translated from the bullpen to the mound as a starter. His WHIP, strikeout rate, and walk rate are are all significantly better than either Kawakami's or Lowe's. Granted, Lowe isn't going anywhere. And he has shown that he can still put together some big games even if his best days are behind him. While I think Kawakami has been the victim of bad luck to make his season seem worse than it actually has been, Medlen has been out pitching him this season. Kawakami can pitch better, I'm sure, but apart from his experience (most of which is in the Japanese Leagues), he hasn't really shown much more than Medlen. I still think Medlen goes back to the pen, but I wonder what happens if Kawakami continues to struggle. Also, if Medlen strings together a few more starts like the one he had today, is it time to more seriously consider making Medlen a fixture in the rotation?

[Olympic Fan]

Braves obviously completed the road trip 6-5 with a win Sunday ... nice job by Medlin on the mound and Glaus at the plate.

Interesting question to think about -- when Jurrjens comes back in a week or so, do you bump Kawakami or Medlin from the rotation.

Another question -- we're getting to the point where contenders buy a piece or two for the stretch run and the teams that are out of it sell their end-of-contract stars for prospects. Should the Braves be in the buying market? I wouldn't mind seeing them try and pick up a top CF -- McLouth was slumping badly before he was hurt ... Blanco and Melky are mediocre.

I was wondering if Jordan Schafer might be ready to come back, but I checked and he's hitting .224 in AAA.

So I'd be in favor of a deal -- just don't give up the farm (Andrus, Feliz and Saltalamacchia for one year of Teixeira .. and that didn't even help win the Division!).

I did see one stat that I guess I should have known, but didn't. At this point, the Braves have the worst road/home imbalance in baseball -- not records, but schedule.

Atlanta has played 39 games on the road (18-21) and just 25 (19-6) at home. By contrast, the Mets have played 34 home games (24-10) and just 29 (11-18) on the road. The Phils have played 29 at home (16-13) and 32 on the road (16-16).

That means that the rest of the way, the schedule is heavily weighted toward home games -- 56 home games and just 42 road games left. That should be a HUGE advantage down the stretch.

Plus, NO MORE WEST COAST ROAD TRIPS!!!!

[COYS]

Braves obviously completed the road trip 6-5 with a win Sunday ... nice job by Medlin on the mound and Glaus at the plate.

Interesting question to think about -- when Jurrjens comes back in a week or so, do you bump Kawakami or Medlin from the rotation.

Another question -- we're getting to the point where contenders buy a piece or two for the stretch run and the teams that are out of it sell their end-of-contract stars for prospects. Should the Braves be in the buying market? I wouldn't mind seeing them try and pick up a top CF -- McLouth was slumping badly before he was hurt ... Blanco and Melky are mediocre.

I was wondering if Jordan Schafer might be ready to come back, but I checked and he's hitting .224 in AAA.

So I'd be in favor of a deal -- just don't give up the farm (Andrus, Feliz and Saltalamacchia for one year of Teixeira .. and that didn't even help win the Division!).

I did see one stat that I guess I should have known, but didn't. At this point, the Braves have the worst road/home imbalance in baseball -- not records, but schedule.

Atlanta has played 39 games on the road (18-21) and just 25 (19-6) at home. By contrast, the Mets have played 34 home games (24-10) and just 29 (11-18) on the road. The Phils have played 29 at home (16-13) and 32 on the road (16-16).

That means that the rest of the way, the schedule is heavily weighted toward home games -- 56 home games and just 42 road games left. That should be a HUGE advantage down the stretch.

Plus, NO MORE WEST COAST ROAD TRIPS!!!!

Haha, I pointed this stat out to my friend who is a huge mets fan. He keeps on tellingme that the braves can't possible continue to win consistently. I pointed out that the braves and the mets have played opposite schedules. The mets have been home a lot and the braves have been road warriors. Despite that imbalance, the braves boast the best run differential in the NL East, have scored the most runs, and have a lot of games at turner field to look forward to where we are currently 19 and 6. The braves are in it for the long haul.

As for center field, I'm not sure who the braves have to trade. We're a little low on major league ready position prospects. I doubt we give up any pitching. Of our regular players, Neither Melky nor Nate would give us much on return. Most of our bench is too valuable vs. What they could get us. It's a bit wild, but I could see escobar as part of a trade for the right player, but even that is extremely unlikely. Maybe Kawakami? Probably not with his contract. I'd love to see the braves make a move, but something tells me if we do anything it probably won't be for a big name.

[JasonEvans]

Back in April, I noted that the Braves had saved money specifically for a trade. When they got rid of JV's salary and did not take back much salary in return and then they signed Glaus for a big bargain, the folks who run the Braves said they were doing it so they could go out and get someone good at the trade deadline.

The way they put it, if they banked $5 or 6 million in salary at the start of the season it would allow them to acquire a $10-12 million player at mid-season. Makes sense to me.

--Jason "a CF would seem to be the biggest need right now" Evans

[devildeac]

Nice call by whomever predicted/wished for a 6-5 road trip. Well done. And that was with three 1 run losses in which they couldn't hit worth a wanker, IIRC.