Derek Lowe is officially Atlanta bound

[riverside sluggers]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2009/01/13/braves_lowe.html

 

4 years/$60 million

 

This offseason they have added Lowe, Kawakami and Vazquez to their rotation

[BoSox21]

4 years, $60 million?!

 

ok, I officially dont blame the Sox for not making a run at him

[riverside sluggers]

Agreed. Thats to his age 39 season. A 38/39 year old Lowe being paid $15 million while pitching in the AL East, no thank you

[BSN07]

Lowe is a good fit for ATL.

 

 

 

That's too much $ though. I'm also glad they Sox didn't pay that much for his services.

[BoSox21]

It just further re-inforces my opinion that the Sox are right to seek these low-risk, high-reward signings for pitching positions they can't fill in-house or through trade. The free agent pitching market is just too ridiculous

[a700hitter]

It just further re-inforces my opinion that the Sox are right to seek these low-risk' date=' high-reward signings for pitching positions they can't fill in-house or through trade. The free agent pitching market is just too ridiculous[/quote']It really is a misnomer to call these low-risk, high reward acquisitions. These are not value signings like David ortiz when he was claimed off waivers. These guys are injured. Their performance level is very much in question due to injury. They are not "low-risk" , because they are at a high risk of not being able to perform at their previous levels. If they were stocks, they would be considered speculative. In other words, they would be classified as "high risk/high reward." As with any investment, lower risk equates to low return. Investors invest in high risk assets for the possibility of high returns.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Atlanta is honestly wasting their time.

[a700hitter]

Atlanta is honestly wasting their time.

They just snatched him away from the Mets who desperately need another starter.

[diony]

Atlanta is honestly wasting their time.

 

1.Lowe

2. Vazquez

3. Kawakami

4. Jurrjens

5. Campillo

 

6. Hanson

7. Hudson (2nd half)

 

That's a great rotation for the NL East.

[BSN07]

Atlanta has a good rotation now. They will be contenders in the East. Both the NL and AL East division are legit 3 team races. Should make for an interesting summer:thumbsup:

[BSN07]

They just snatched him away from the Mets who desperately need another starter.

 

They will bring back Perez now. And maybe Sheets on a 1 year deal.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

1.Lowe

2. Vazquez

3. Kawakami

4. Jurrjens

5. Campillo

 

6. Hanson

7. Hudson (2nd half)

 

That's a great rotation for the NL East.

The Braves have a #2 (Jurrjens), three #4s (Lowe, Vazquez, Kawakami), and a one year wonder (Campillo) for a rotation to start the year, and will be adding a surgically 'repaired' elbow in the second half (Hudson). Yeah, impressive.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

They just snatched him away from the Mets who desperately need another starter.

So they took what would have been a #4 for starter for the Mets, and made him their ace.

 

 

The Mets can get another pitcher, you know. And probably not pay as obscene a price as they would have for Lowe.

[riverside sluggers]

The Mets have shored up the biggest problem, the bullpen. The Braves have got a solid rotation now, stealing D-Lowe away from the Mets only makes it sweeter for them

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

The Mets have shored up the biggest problem' date=' the bullpen. The Braves have got a solid rotation now, stealing D-Lowe away from the Mets only makes it sweeter for them[/quote']

Santana, Maine, Pelfrey, (tbd), Niese

 

 

Lowe, Jurrjens, Vazquez, Kawakami, Campillo

 

 

Hamels, Myers, Blanton, Moyer, Kendrick

 

 

 

So Philly has them beat no question, and the Mets, if they grab Sheets or Perez, field a better rotation than the Braves as well.

[rician blast]

It really is a misnomer to call these low-risk' date=' high reward acquisitions. These are not value signings like David ortiz when he was claimed off waivers. These guys are injured. Their performance level is very much in question due to injury. They are not "low-risk" , because they are at a high risk of not being able to perform at their previous levels. If they were stocks, they would be considered speculative. In other words, they would be classified as "high risk/high reward." As with any investment, lower risk equates to low return. Investors invest in high risk assets for the possibility of high returns.[/quote']

 

 

That is true...in fact the whole "low-risk" terminology is often misused in terms of evaluating contracts. Low "relative cost" is a better description, IMO, for these 1 year deals.

[ORS]

Low exposure, or liability, is what they mean. The team isn't on the hook for much, but the risk of them getting nothing from the guys they signed is certainly greater than if they'd signed one more stable player, who of course would only come with increased exposure.

[BoSox21]

It really is a misnomer to call these low-risk' date=' high reward acquisitions. These are not value signings like David ortiz when he was claimed off waivers. These guys are injured. Their performance level is very much in question due to injury. They are not "low-risk" , because they are at a high risk of not being able to perform at their previous levels. If they were stocks, they would be considered speculative. In other words, they would be classified as "high risk/high reward." As with any investment, lower risk equates to low return. Investors invest in high risk assets for the possibility of high returns.[/quote']

 

Wouldn't you equate risk with the amount of money spent on them? I consider these signings low risk because the amount of money invested is minimal and they're only one-year deals and while there is debate as to chances of Smoltz/Penny/Saito performing even close to a level they're achieved previously in their careers, it makes it a high-reward

 

I consider the CC Sabathia contract high-risk, high-reward just for the fact that they're paying $23 mil annually for 7 years to a pitcher who could very well break down. And to dispell any notion of anti-Yankee bias, I considered the extension the Sox signed Pedro to in 1998 as a high-risk, high-reward signing too and he's the f***ing reason I became a Sox fan

[riverside sluggers]

If I someday get alzheimers, I want Pedro's 99 & 00 seasons to be one of the things i can still remember

[diony]

The Braves have a #2 (Jurrjens)' date=' [b']three #4s (Lowe, Vazquez, Kawakami),[/b] and a one year wonder (Campillo) for a rotation to start the year, and will be adding a surgically 'repaired' elbow in the second half (Hudson). Yeah, impressive.

 

Lowe is a #4? Based on his 3 last seasons with the Dodgers, he has pitched like a #2, stats don't lie.

 

Vazquez in NL, is 200 IP, 200K and a sub 4 ERA guaranteed. That's good enough for a #3.

 

Kawakami? Hmm I don't know, the Braves have been scouting him for months. His has a low 90’s fastball, a plus cutter and a very slow curveball around 65 mph, and also throws a shuuto. Let's see if he pans out before counting him as a #4.

 

Hanson has ace stuff, he's a #1 if he pans out. Hudson will be back by mid-season.

 

Campillo is fair enough for #5, for now.

 

Plus they have depth with guys like Jo-Jo Reyes and Charlie Morton.

 

So yeah, I think is impressive. They have by much, a better rotation than the Mets right now.

[a700hitter]

Wouldn't you equate risk with the amount of money spent on them? I consider these signings low risk because the amount of money invested is minimal and they're only one-year deals and while there is debate as to chances of Smoltz/Penny/Saito performing even close to a level they're achieved previously in their careers' date=' it makes it a high-reward[/quote']With investments, the probability of a return on the investment determines the risk. Treasury Bills are very low risk, because the return is virtually certain. Because the investment is low risk you will pay comparatively more than if you invested your money in something with a very high risk like a hedge fund. The return is the pitcher's performance. The probability that our acquisitions will perform at a high level is low, so the risk is high, which is why they are cheap.

 

I consider the CC Sabathia contract high-risk' date=' high-reward just for the fact that they're paying $23 mil annually for 7 years to a pitcher who could very well break down. And to dispell any notion of anti-Yankee bias, I considered the extension the Sox signed Pedro to in 1998 as a high-risk, high-reward signing too and he's the f***ing reason I became a Sox fan[/quote']The probability that Sabathia will perform at a high level is very high making the investment in him a low risk, which is why he is very expensive. His acquisition is low risk/low reward in a fiancial sense, because the cost/win ratio (i.e., the return) will be very high.

[rician blast]

Low exposure' date=' or liability, is what they mean. The team isn't on the hook for much, but the risk of them getting nothing from the guys they signed is certainly greater than if they'd signed one more stable player, who of course would only come with increased exposure.[/quote']

 

Right.

 

Now looking at it from a slightly different perspective, the risk of these guys falling apart is greater, but the FO has made a determination that they're ok with that...they're willing to risk getting nothing from these guys, even if it means the team's chances are diminished. They don't want to mortgage the future.

 

Why? Well, now we're back to that discussion of why the Sox have done nothing in terms of high-profile, long-term contracts this offseason, and it hinges on everything we've said in the past few weeks, which I won't rehash now.

[BoSox21]

The probability that Sabathia will perform at a high level is very high making the investment in him a low risk, which is why he is very expensive. His acquisition is low risk/low reward in a fiancial sense, because the cost/win ratio (i.e., the return) will be very high.

 

Even towards the back-end of the deal?

[a700hitter]

Even towards the back-end of the deal?

Yes, the probability of high performance goes down in later years, but the relative value of a contract is not based on any single year.

[rician blast]

The risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis of a particular player differs depending upon what MLB team we're talking about.

 

The Yankees are ready, willing and able to accept the possibility that a long-term/Big $$ contract might fail, whereas most other teams are not R/W/A to do so as such an outcome could leave the organization hamstrung for several years.

[a700hitter]

The risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis of a particular player differs depending upon what MLB team we're talking about.

 

The Yankees are ready, willing and able to accept the possibility that a long-term/Big $$ contract might fail, whereas most other teams are not R/W/A to do so as such an outcome could leave the organization hamstrung for several years.

Not really. The risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis should be the same. What varies is the risk tolerance due to the difference in financial resources or discretionary funds or other factors. It's counter-intuitive, but the smaller market teams will very often go for higher risk contracts, because they come at a steep discount..

[rician blast]

Not really. The risk/reward or cost/benefit analysis should be the same. What varies is the risk tolerance due to the difference in financial resources or discretionary funds or other factors. It's counter-intuitive' date=' but the smaller market teams will very often go for higher risk contracts, because they come at a steep discount..[/quote']

 

Yes Really. Teams from different ends of the financial spectrum most certainly analyze the acceptability of deals based upon their own resources, goals, etc. so the while the mechanics of the analysis may be similar, the criteria for acceptability is vastly different. Your bolded comment was precisely my point.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Lowe is a #4? Based on his 3 last seasons with the Dodgers' date=' he has pitched like a #2[/quote']

 

Let me pitch 15 games a year against the Padres, Giants, and D-Backs, and I'd be a fairly good pitcher too.

 

How about mentioning his stats from his last two seasons in the AL East? That was the last time he pitched in a division that had offensive firepower.

 

stats don't lie.

 

This from the guy who dismisses Young's defensive stats in favor of a fangraphs article.

 

Vazquez in NL, is 200 IP, 200K and a sub 4 ERA guaranteed. That's good enough for a #3.

 

In 7 seasons in the NL, Vazquez has had a posted a 4+ ERA four times (and one other time he was right on the fence). Swing and a miss.

 

Hanson has ace stuff, he's a #1 if he pans out. Hudson will be back by mid-season.

 

Oooh, hot prospect Tommy Hanson will come up and save the Braves. Likely story.

 

 

Hudson will be back by mid-season at the earliest. I already mentioned how he's coming off major elbow surgery. One or two setbacks, and he's likely gone for the year. Even if he doesn't have any setbacks, you can't guarantee that he'll be effective.

 

Campillo is fair enough for #5, for now.

 

He was a 30 year old rookie last year, and in all his previous (spotty) action in the majors, he was horrific.

 

Plus they have depth with guys like Jo-Jo Reyes and Charlie Morton.

 

LOL

 

So yeah, I think is impressive. They have by much, a better rotation than the Mets right now.

 

Umm... no they don't.

[Cocos Disciples]

He was a 30 year old rookie last year, and in all his previous (spotty) action in the majors, he was horrific.

 

Way to take 15 2/3 IP over two years and pretend they mean something. He's a good back end of the rotation starter.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Way to take 15 2/3 IP over two years and pretend they mean something. He's a good back end of the rotation starter.

 

If he was 22-25, they wouldn't mean anything. But this is a 31 year old who has spent the vast majority of his time in the minors, and was an abomination in the majors up until last year. I highly doubt something magical just clicked at age 30.