Interesting note in this article:

http://www.ajc.com/braves/content/s...ravesnotes.html

"The Braves were responsible for $48.5 million of the $78.5 million Hampton
was owed during 2003-08, including the entire $43 million during the 2006-08
seasons.

The team prorated the amount of its commitment, so Hampton's contract counts
for about $8 million annually in the Braves' accounting books. Insurance
covered part of his $13.5 million salary this season, but the team won't
confirm if the amount was more than 50 percent."
----------------
I posted this because I think it's the first time since he was acquired that
I've seen any mention of the pro-rating, so maybe they actually followed
through with it. If the deal is pro-rated as listed then the tream is in a
little better financial shape heading into next season.

another AJC article mentions that the Braves likely were profitable this
year; I wonder how much of their admitting that is due to the insurance
money on Hampton and some on Chipper?

colin

Colin William wrote:


According to Forbes the Braves were the 5th most profitable
team in baseball. in 2005 (2006 numbers won't be out until
June but the Braves won't start truly paying for this year's
failure until 2007 -- in general the bunk of revenue change
for on-field results lags a year).

And that's before considering that the value of the franchise
went up ~25 million -- roughly equal to their operating
income.

They are and always have been in fine shape financially. Like
all teams they choose to poor-mouth their financial situation
to take the heat off for all manner of decisions.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/04/17/06...tions_land.html

Some. But it's a small part.

"Ron Johnson" <johnson@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote

This is in part why I was so interested in their possibly admitting to the
pro-rating. If they actually admit to it in public within the context of an
$80m payroll then they have left probably $20m to spend on top of $60m
already committed. If they play it in public like Hampton costs $14.5m this
year, then they have closer to $14m to spend. So it'll be interesting to see
how many players they go after. If they pro-rate and play it like they
didn't, then they could functionally slash payroll almost 10% from $80m this
coming year.

Colin

> I posted this because I think it's the first time since he was acquired that

and i congratulate you for staying on top of it. i know every year you
remind us to watch for it.

--
Ben

Colin William wrote:

Bring back Marcus. Upgrade LF.

s/

Sam Hutcheson wrote:

I agree that they should bring back Giles, but they should definitely look
to upgrade pitching. This offense was as good as any other in the NL and,
while it is due for some drop-off at catcher and first, should see
improvements from second and right (assuming Giles returns).

The pitching sucked, dude. JS is right to look there first for upgrades.
Add a number two or three starter and a decent setup guy for Wickman and the
Braves are as good as anyone else in the NL going into next year.

"Alan Honeycutt" <Arch.Nemesis.Hostel.1.3@bellsouth.net> wrote

Out of curiosity, how much better do y'all think Giles is likely to be next
year as compared to Aybar? And is that difference worth however many $$ more
Giles will cost?


I don't see them adding a starter. We go into next year with a rotation of
Smoltz, Hudson, Hampton, James and Horacio already in place. I can see them
running with that, and signing some guy who can do long relief and spot
start as necessary. Setup they'll likely pick up, but the AJC suggested the
team is looking to bring back mcBride and Yates in addition to Wickman, so
there won't be too many new faces in the bullpen if that's the case.

Colin

Colin William wrote:

They also have Davies in the wings. I'm on board with the "to improve
on 2006 you improve the pitching" line, but I don't think you have to
do a lot of free agent work to improve the pitching. Jorge Sosa is
gone. Horacio Ramirez is rightly delegated to #4/5 starter. Those
were you #3 and #4 guys respectively last year. Smoltz looks good for
another solid season in 07. Hudson's 06 was noticably bad even by his
reduced standards these days. If Hampton can provide anything close to
league average innings (i.e. light years better than Thomson and Sosa
last year) and they shore up the pen (they're already working on it)
then the pitching is already improved. Which is not say that htey
should refuse Johan Santana should the Twins want to trade him for
McKay McBride, but barring something like that, I think you need to
look for the most bang for your buck. How many marginal wins would you
get from replacing Mike Hampton with a better arm vs. replacing
Diaz/Langerhans with a real LF?

Now granted, KJ returns next year, so all bets are off, but really....

s/

Colin William wrote:

Giles was pretty hit-unlucky this year, so I'd say he's due for a
decent-sized bounce back. He'll probably cost $5 mil. When I point out
that he's probably the only thing standing between us and a lineup that
includes Pete Orr for much of the time that Chipper is hurt next year, it
doesn't seem like much, does it?


I'm holding out hope that we'll acquire a decent starter. Counting on
bounce-backs from all three of Hampton, Horacio, and Hudson next year seems
like crazy talk to me.


McBride good, but Yates? *Tyler* Yates? Ick. Anyway, I foresee them
spending money on one setup guy (hopefully someone better than Baez) and
then having open tryouts for the middle relief slots. I wonder what LA
would want for Jonathan Broxton.

Colin William wrote:

I'm not ruling out a Tom Glavine "300 wins reunion tour", but I suppose
that the recently disabled Pedro makes it more likely the Mets pick up
Glavine's ridiculous $14 million option.