CHIPPER JONES AND JOHN SMOLTZ ARE TEN-AND-FIVE MEN AND CAN NOT BE TRADED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT

From now on, any comment advocating a nonsensical deal of one of these two players to a club they’d never accept a deal to will be deleted by me. John Smoltz is not going to be traded to the Mariners, and Chipper Jones is not going to be traded to the Tigers, and the Braves are not going to pay a team to take them anyway, which is what would be needed because of the size of their contracts.

13 thoughts on “CHIPPER JONES AND JOHN SMOLTZ ARE TEN-AND-FIVE MEN AND CAN NOT BE TRADED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT”

  1. Haha, no kidding. Smoltz will finish his career in atlanta and chipper is not approving a trade, period. Chipper’s played in the postseason every year of his career, he’s not going anywhere.

  2. Don’t forget to mention to people that Mike Hampton has full no-trade protection and is, by all accounts, very happy in Atlanta. He’s not going anywhere either.

    But did you hear the one where we trade Hampton and Chipper to the Devil Rays for Huff and Kazmir? :)

  3. Well said Mac, it’s time to stop all the non-sense speculation on Chipper and Smoltz. Let’s hope people realize we are not talking about fantasy baseball here (I certainly don’t mind Mac starts this topic though).

    Hampton and Chipper to the Devil Rays for Huff and Kazmir? I will jump on that deal in less than a second, but people making this kind of rumor certainly don’t know what kind of GM Chuck LaMar is.

  4. But, but, but I just heard a caller on the FAN say the Braves and Yankees have a deal in place that will send Jeter, A-Rod, Big Unit and Mo Rivera to the Braves for Chipper and Smoltz. Any truth to that??? lol lol lol lol hahahahahahahaha!

    But I did hear this. Marcus said his brother Brian would enjoy playing for Atlanta after his contract is up. He’s certainly better than Jordan.

  5. Unless Chipper REALLY restructures his contract, our salary situation next year will be very top-heavy.

    Bottom line: we need a new owner.

  6. Bottom line: we need a new owner.

    OK. Say we get a new owner. The contracts and the man responsible for them will still be there, won’t they? Am I missing something?

  7. OK. Say we get a new owner. The contracts and the man responsible for them will still be there, won’t they? Am I missing something?

    I assume that “we need a new owner” is shorthand for “we need an owner that won’t handcuff the GM when it comes to payroll”, which would be related to “we need an owner that doesn’t cook the books by paying way below market rates for TV rights, and then claim that the Braves are losing money and need to cut costs”.

  8. Pingback: **No Pepper**
  9. “we need an owner that doesn’t cook the books by paying way below market rates for TV rights, and then claim that the Braves are losing money and need to cut costs”.

    There’s really no grounds for discussion of this since it is all purely speculative. It seems really approapriate that this is being brought up in a thread about banned “nonsensical” statements. All I can say about it is what we all already know: 1)That giving a general manager free reign and deferring huge contracts is not a way to maintain a successful ballclub (see Arizona Diamondbacks 2001-present) and 2) That taking on huge contracts every year and having the highest payroll in baseball doesn’t guarantee you success in the postseason (see NY Yankees 2001-present).

    I’m not opposed to new ownership for the Braves, but you can’t just assume that that’s going to solve all problems as if the new owners are expected to say, “Hey guess what. We found all this hidden money lying around and we’re going to throw every last penny into team payroll so we can be the high-priced under-achievers we were before. Who said we were in this to make a profit anyway?”

    I just don’t see it.

  10. All I’m saying is if we didn’t have a hard and fast number set for payroll, Schuerholz wouldn’t have to do so much jockeying around. What are we going to do next year with Hampton’s contract? Who’s going to replace Hudson in the rotation next year? Why the hell do we have to sign stiffs like Jordan and Mondesi (although I think Mondesi might do well)? If we had an Arthur Blank/Ted Turner type we could have a payroll AROUND $90 million perhaps with some leeway if a free agent interests us, etc. I just feel sorry for Schuerholz having to scramble so much. Is Tim Hudson going to lead us past the second round? What if Smoltz gets hurt? He’s publically stated that he won’t have surgery again.

  11. Malone, I think a lot of people have forgotten that the Braves account for Hampton’s contract differently from other players. Usually, teams will simply accounts for the cash outflow on the players’ salaries each year because, like Chipper and Andruw’s contracts, the dollar amounts does not fluctuation much year on year. When the Braves acquired Hampton, the Braves have publicly stated that they will spread the total amount owe to Hampton evenly through the remaining six years of his contract. This is the method which any accountants will apply. Therefore, if the Braves have been accounting for Hampton’s contract correctly, Hampton’s salary for next year is the same as this year, last year and the year before last year, which is approximately $8.5M per year. Under today’s market, this is a reasonable price if you compare this to Milton’s contract. Hope I am delivering this message clear enough…

  12. Thank you, kc.

    I didn’t have any idea. I thought we paid on the cheap until the insane bucks kick in next year.

    I asked a lot of questions about players other than Hampton, though…

  13. kc, I’ve heard that tune before. However, the Braves still have to follow through next year and properly account for Hampton’s contract. If I look at the “payroll” in the AJC, and it says “Hampton – $13.5 million” – then we’re getting screwed.

    Malone, you’re right in one sense – we’re only paying Hampton $1.5 million this year for his services. We’re also supposedly taking $7 million (or whatever it’s taken each year to average out) and putting it in an interest bearing escrow account, from which it can be withdrawn in the future to cover the expensive years at the end of his deal.

    However, I would guess that 85% of Braves fans don’t know this; the only way they’ll find out is if the AJC says so in a footnote to a payroll spreadsheet it publishes or something like that. If Time Warner next year decides to account for the contract differently and simply pockets the money it’s been saving (and convinces the AJC to do the same, natch), a small minority of us fans will be hollering about their cheapness, and the rest of Atlanta will acquiesce and pine for the mid 90s. Let’s all say a prayer that that doesn’t happen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.