Ha. You do realize I'm David O'Brien, not the same Dave O'Brien who is a broadcaster for the Red Sox, right?
Of course there's a chance. He has to beat the Cardinals, though, since that's his last start, on Saturday.
Obviously the Nationals, since they were in win-now mode and a preseason World Series pick by many. At the deadline they were still aiming for a postseason berth. The Braves at the deadline were looking to the future, not adding for the present.
If none are impact by 2017? Certainly. And in the case of the Olivera trade, I think it's fair to say you could criticize if he doesn't become an impact player during 2016 season, after he's had a normal offseason and spring training and will have had some time to get adjusted to MLB. He will be 31, after all, in 2016.
The right veteran leaders. They gave monster contract to the wrong guy in Werth, in my opinion. And gave Ryan Zimmerman a big contract for what he'd done in past, not what he could be expected to do at that point and going forward.
If they can get Kimbrel back without giving up big prospects, I think they'll try. And if he's not back, I think Vizcaino more likely to begin season as closer than Grilli, and only because I don't think Grilli will be 100 percent by opening day after the Achilles surgery. But we'll see. Gotta wait to see how Grilli's recovery goes in next few months.
Had a real solid finish at Double-A. Braves were encouraged, for sure. But I'm not expecting him to compete for a rotation spot in the spring training, with only nine starts above A-ball.
For one thing, they'll make sure they have a solid bullpen. If they'd just had a strong bullpen this season, they could have won another 10-15 games, easily. And it could have made a big difference in terms of morale IMO (not to mention what it could have done for Shelby Miller). Add at least one good hitter and one proven veteran starter to help guide the rotation, in addition to a couple of proven relievers in addition to those you have returning from injuries, and I think you have a competitive team in '16. Not a division winner, but a decent team that could get momentum going toward a big season in '17.
He's a major league bat and a below-average defender.
Depends on what becomes available. By that I mean, if they could swing a deal for a quality offensive 2B and move Peterson to a utility role, they might consider it. But they really do like his defense and everything on the mental/intangible side, just not certain about his bat and whether he can become a solid hitter. But they've not given up on that, since he's had one full season and has played a relatively small amount of baseball for someone his age, having played college football for three years in addition to baseball.
Don't know what's going on behind closed doors with Tampa Bay area politicos and MLB officials talking to them, but I think there's a legit chance, just because I don't see Rays getting a stadium built. In my opinion, Rays should and very well could move to Montreal.
I don't think they'll want to spend the money that Cespedes will command. I think Cespedes is worth more to New York, with its larger payroll and fans who've become enamored of him, than he is to a mid/lower-half payroll team.
I'm not expecting him to take less money to stay. Cardinals have money. If they want to keep him bad enough, they will. I do find it interesting that they're apparently going to let him get on free-agent market, when they could have signed him long-term before that if they'd pursued it.
Thanks. That's appreciated.Yes, I do far more on Twitter than I'm required to, but there's enough great fans and interesting and/or humorous people on there to offset the jerks and certain others who really believe they know more about baseball, the ins and outs of the game, than they actually do.
I've asked myself the same question: Why would the Padres do it? Makes no sense. But then again, they've done some other things in past 10 months that made little sense, such as mortgaging their future by trading away so many top prospects. So maybe if they could get prospects back, they'd try to.
They liked him when he was really good. He turns 37 later this week, and he's 5-13 with a 5.93 ERA and 1.457 WHIP this season.
Nothing new. A lost season. Changing relations between U.S. and Cuba haven't had immediate effect on matters such as this, at this level.
Yes, I think that makes a lot of sense for both sides.
They've long preferred trade market to building through free agency, though they obviously have made exceptions, mostly lesser-dollar to middle-sized contracts (Pierzynski, Gomes, Johnson, etc from the low-end contracts, and Markakis was a four-year, $44M deal). Could get involved in bidding for a mid-rotation starter or LF, but I wouldn't expect them to be in on the biggest-contract FAs at either position. As for Wieters, they like him, but injuries and Boras representation seem like significant drawbacks in that being a potential target.
He played more innings than anyone in Braves history in 2014, and biggest issue he had before that was contact-lens situation in past. So I wouldn't say he's had a problem with recurring injuries.
Yes, the intend to, but I think they want to have a better sense of whether he'll take a 20-percent cut before they offer that (that's max paycut you can offer an arb-eligible player).
No sure who your sarcasm is directed at, but I've said I wouldn't have traded Wood (and probably not Peraza) in deal for Olivera.