If you want to bottom-line it, the Braves (15-17) are a half-game ahead of the much-hyped Marlins (15-16) right now. I know it's still way, way early, but that's a fact. And they're a game behind the defending World Series champion Giants (16-16) in the wild-card standings. I mean, it is what it is. People can bash them all day and night, I understand that. It's frustrating to see them get swept by the Nats and for the lack of bullpen depth to be exposed and for a couple of key starters to have ERAs about 1 1/2 runs higher than expected. But for all that, the team is 15-17, and almost nobody predicted them to be above .500 this season, right?
If it didn't work out as a starter, sure, he would be considered. But as long as he's got chance to be a top-half-of-rotation starter -- and he certainly does have that ability -- then he'll stay on developmental track as starter.
Let me see if Bob is still here in the live-chat center. I think he stepped out for a cig.
Last update was that no one was injured seriously. But our Michael Cunningham is on top of the situation and will file updates, if he hasn't already while we've been on this chat.
More arms will be available in another month or two. I agree with you, team could really use a couple of bullpen arms. But I don't see Varvaro as the answer. If he was healthy and/or pitching well, I don't see why he'd have been DFA'd twice already this season. Don't know of any injury and I'm not speculating he's hurt, just saying there's usually a good reason why two teams would DFA a guy so quickly.
Thank ya, Bob. Much appreciated.
They've indicated they aren't interesting in trading him. But as we know, we've heard such indications before. And if Peterson continues to produce and play solid D that he has, well, anything is possible.
No, he's not hard to deal with. Never heard anyone say that about him. Look at his numbers this season. Average at best. And Cubs DFA'd him immediately after getting him, so they obviously didn't think he'd help their big-league team. Hey, I don't know what reason is. But it's unusual to get DFA'd twice like that.
As said earlier, good chance we see him this year if another starter struggles, gets hurt, has a tired arm and needs a 15-day DL stint or to skip a start, etc. He could come up to help bullpen if necessary, but #Braves upper management prefers to have him continue starting every fifth day and feeling is he's not quite ready for big leagues and they'd rather not rush him at all.
Don't see that happening this soon, not with Maybin on roster and under contract another season at $9M. And Maybin is producing lately.
It's a mostly inexperienced bullpen, and guys like Martin and Cundiff have been thrust into roles that no one expected them to have this soon. For the most part, they've performed very well. I agree with you that guys are still getting their legs under them, still getting a feel for roles and the big leagues, etc. And Grilli back spasms really showed how fragile the pen is in terms of just not having much depth. They are what they are.
Grilli's back isn't a chronic thing. Us old guys have back issues at times. He's not been slowed by it in past, so I wouldn't expect it to crop up again on any regular basis, now that he's through this (or nearly through it) and will have a better idea how to stay on top of it to try to avoid a repeat. But yes, I could see Boggs getting a call at some point, maybe sooner than later. It's why they added him, for experience.
Nice. I guess you and I had a different view of last year's team. Good guys, but very hard to watch play nightly.
Nothing. As of last week, he hadn't resumed throwing and there was no timetable for him to do so. Braves person I asked didn't know if he'd have exploratory surgery or not. If he does, he's probably out a couple more months even if no damage found.
Not arguing with your statistical analysis. But I know watching them nightly, this offense is exponentially better to watch, has a far better chance of coming back from early deficits, and does not feature 3-4 nightly glares at umpires after called third strikes and slow, painful-to-watch walks back to the dugout.
Move hurt a lot, since it caused them to shift Grilli to closer and diluted the setup corps, etc. No doubt. But if that's what it took to dump B.J.'s contract and eliminate that issue hanging over the team, and also get a good pitching prospect (Wisler) back in the deal, I think most would say it's worth it. The Braves certainly would.
Could definitely see him becoming a hitting coach, maybe in another couple of years. Things can change quickly, but Seitzer and his assistant Castro have done a great job with the Braves so far, and everyone in management is pleased with that hire.
Fredi wants to let him focus on second base, since things are going well for him there. Doesn't even plan to play him at shortstop if/when Simmons eventually gets a day off. Before season he talked about playing Peterson at short some to give Simmons a day now and then. But now he's so pleased with Peterson's play at 2B, doesn't want to disrupt it by having him think about other positions, etc.
Don't know, but haven't heard any discussion of trading him or even possibility of trading him. They like everything about Peterson and how he fits this team.
Yes, they are. But starting pitching shouldn't be. No one could have or should have anticipated the early struggles of Teheran or even Wood, though the latter pitched so well couple days ago, there's plenty of reason to believe he'll turn things around quickly.
Honestly -- and I'm just being honest here, means nothing either way -- I haven't heard his name mentioned in clubhouse once since about two days after the trade.
Not the case. The Braves challenged the blocking rule because that is the way to get both parts of the play reviewed -- the tag (whether he was safe or not) and the blocking rule. If they had only challenged whether he was safe, umps wouldn't have reviewed the blocking rule. This was announced in pressbox afterward, and an MLB ruling on the play was also released to us writers. I can't help it if anyone said on air otherwise, but they were wrong, according to Reds official who got the ruling. Also, Fredi had said early that an umpire explained to him last year that in that particular play, if he challenged the blocking rule the umps would review both parts of the play, but not if he challenged the out/safe ruling and not the blocking rule.