August 19, 2008
C.C.? Just Say No, No
Many people -- including our own Will Schaffer, below -- are advocating signing C.C. Sabathia to a long-term deal. He's one of the top pitchers in baseball, the reigning AL Cy Young laureate, and has probably been the best pitcher in the NL since he came to Milwaukee. He's clearly one of the best pitchers in baseball now. But is he likely to justify the long-term deal he's sure to command, as a number-one pitcher in his prime?
In all likelihood, no. 7 of his top 10 most comparable pitchers on baseball-reference.com were done by age 31, by which I mean they never pitched another full season in their career. Alex Fernandez was basically done after age 27; Tony Cloninger was done after his age 29 season, as was Larry Dierker; Ken Holtzman was pretty much done after age 30, as was Lefty Gomez; Dan Petry was done after his age 31 season, as was Dave McNally.
Of the other three, Dennis Eckersley became a reliever after his age 31 season, Mark Buehrle (only a year older than C.C.) appears to be still going strong, and Greg Maddux is of course in his own category.
C.C. has pitched 1552 2/3 innings before his 28th birthday, which is a very high number. There have been 7 other pitchers who have debuted since 1988 and done that: Pedro Martinez, Javier Vasquez, Jim Abbott, and Jon Garland, and, repeating from the last list, Maddux, Fernandez, and Buehrle.
Pedro, of course, has been constantly injured since he turned 33. Other than a resurgent 2007, Vasquez basically went from a potential ace to a league-average innings eater after he was 27. Fernandez was pretty much done after age 27, and so was Abbott. Garland is pretty much the definition of a league-average innings eater. Buehrle appears still to be in his prime, and Maddux remained one of the league's best pitchers through his age 36 season. Maddux and Buehrle are really the only recent precedents for a pitcher with his innings total remaining effective long enough to justify the contract Sabathia will command -- and Buehrle, only a year older than Sabathia, is another prime candidate to break down in the near future.
To reiterate: 7 of his top 10 comparables, and 4 of the 7 with his number of innings, were either league-average or destroyed by injury by age 31. Pedro Martinez only hung on for two more years after that. Greg Maddux is double-counted, and since he's basically the most durable pitcher in baseball history, he's not a good yardstick to measure by. There's no one comparable to him.
Of course, it's always possible that C.C. will stay healthy and effective for many more years to come. But I wouldn't bet on it. Not with his body type, and definitely not with that many miles on that arm.
Update: in response to a comment by Coach from the comments thread, "Sabathia is only 27, he has an eight year average of 34 starts, 221 innings, 15 wins and has been nothing but durable and dependable."
That's the 162 game average. His actual numbers in slightly less than 8 years are 246 starts, 1601 2/3 IP, and 114 wins. There are only 5 other pitchers debuting in the last 30 years to accomplish that in the first 8 years of their careers.
2 of them are Freddy Garcia, who went from elite to average some time in his late twenties, and Tim Hudson, who has continued to pitch well into his early 30's but just had to undergo Tommy John surgery. Both are still active, so we don't know their full career arcs.
The other three are Mark Langston, Frank Viola, and Rick Reuschel. Langston was a very good pitcher in his prime, but he was pretty much finished as an elite pitcher after his career-best age 32 year in 1993, two years after his 8th season. He turned in 2 more league-average seasons, then became a pitcher who was frequently injured and mediocre when healthy.
Frank Viola pitched very well through his age 33 year in 1993, 4 years after his 8th season, but he was almost perpetually injured after that, and only made 15 more starts in three seasons before hanging up his spikes.
Rick Reuschel pitched about 6 and a half full seasons after his 8th season in 1979, but after a full year in 1980 and the strike-shortened 1981 campaign, he missed all of the 1982 season, almost all of the 1983 season, and most of the 1984 season. From then on, he was very erratic: a brilliant 1985 was followed by a mediocre 1986, then a terrific 1987, then an average 1988, then a solid 1989, his last full season.
The odds are, Sabathia will not be able to keep up this workload at the level of success he's previously been used to.
Discussion
107 Comments on "C.C.? Just Say No, No"
#2
Posted by Curt, August 19, 2008 12:07 AM
Stu - I think he takes 3/75, but I don't think anybody in the game is worth that.
While I'm sure that Alex's death-by-statistics approach is absolutely indicative of what's to come with CC, I still have to believe that he has several good years left in him. That said, I say you sign the guy, ride his arm for a couple of years and trade him to some desperate team before his arm goes jello.
However, for my money, I'd rather spend the same money on a couple of starters that are a step below the mighty CC. I see bigger problems with the rotation than the help that one premium free agent can provide.
#3
Posted by Stu, August 19, 2008 12:15 AM
"...but I don’t think anybody in the game is worth that."
Well, objectively, no. But to get an elite FA, you have to spend a lot of money. Nobody, to my knowledge, has really tried this type of approach---throwing a crazy heap of per-season money at someone on such a short-term basis but not tying up the team's financial flexibility for more than a couple of years---and I'd think a pitcher like CC and a situation like the Braves' would make for an ideal (if there is an ideal) situation in which to try it out.
"I see bigger problems with the rotation than the help that one premium free agent can provide."
Don't disagree with this. But I think we have the pieces to trade for another, more cost-controlled mid-rotation type.
#4
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 12:21 AM
Curt, not to split hairs, but what I'm doing isn't statistical analysis so much as historical analysis. Pitchers who pitch a lot of innings at a young age have historically tended to get injured. You can take a look at the history and see for yourself.
Stu, I like the way you're thinking -- that's creative, and I'd much rather give C.C. $75 million for 3 years than $120 million for 6 years. He may not break down right away. But the likelihood is extremely, extremely high that he will break down. We don't want to cripple our payroll with a long-term contract for a guy who is almost certain to get injured at some point before the end of the deal.
#6
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 12:35 AM
Comparables have nothing to do with body type, stuff, pitching mechanics, etc. They have to do with numbers and it just is not really a reliable measure for saying he did this, this is what we should expect from him. Long-term deals are always a risk, but it seems more and more like people advocate never signing pitchers long-term. That is a way to truly leave an organization completely in the stone age. You've got to take risks to get places in this game.
#7
Posted by telemakhos, August 19, 2008 12:36 AM
The problem I have with this argument is that I think those comparables are based on stats. Here's another site that gives comparables based on repertoire and useage thereof. http://baseball.bornbybits.com/plots/C.C._Sabathia.html
The problem with these sites are that these aren't the big factors in potential injuries for cc. While the b-r comps do take into account things like number of innings, age, and complete games, it is more heavily weighted towards talent (wins, losses, win percentage, era, hits allowed, strikeouts, walks, shutouts, and saves make up 9 of 13 categories that affect point differences). Also, the site I provided is based on stuff, so while the similarity in longevity for say, a pair of knuckleballers would tend to work, for the most part it doesn't. The point is that similarity scores are not meant to be used to predict logevity or injury proneness. The big factors that should be focused on are injury history, size, delivery mechanics, innings pitched/wear and tear, and age. These comps are as focused on other things as they are on these factors, so basically they tell nothing that a random sampling wouldn't say.
#8
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 12:39 AM
Will, it may keep us in the stone age but at least we aint screwed like the Giants are with Zito's contract.
#9
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 12:39 AM
Telemakhos, the thing is, a random sampling of pitchers will tell you the same thing: most of them get injured. Signing pitchers to long-term contracts is inherently risky, and few are worth the money. Moreover, Sabathia is overweight and has pitched a ton of innings. Neither of those necessarily means that he'll get injured, but both further increase the likelihood. When you're weighing the risk, you have to say that he is at an elevated risk. Is someone with a risk that high really worth signing to an $18 mill/yr contract? I doubt it.
#10
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 12:44 AM
The Brewers, Marlins, and Rays are 3 teams in the hunt for the playoffs that dont have a guy on a long term contract that is SIGNED to a 20+ million dollar deal.
#11
Posted by Curt, August 19, 2008 12:44 AM
Alex - I know, but "death-by-statistics" has more flair than "death-by-historical-analysis." No?
Either way I agree with your position, but I still believe that he has a couple of years before he disintegrates. Regardless, if you sign him to a 3 year deal then you have to have the pieces in place to be competitive quickly. Again, I think Stu's 3 year deal idea is good, but throwing that kind of money at 1 pitcher may make management leery of signing a real consistent difference maker for the outfield.
#12
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 12:50 AM
Again, not saying there isn't a risk (though most people kind of figured Zito's stuff was plummeting and the signing was stupid) but there is also a huge reward.
Braves#1, there are only two $20 million contracts in baseball, so not exactly surprising. And unfortunately, we aren't in a situation like the Rays because you have to lose and lose bad for a number of years before you get those kind of draft picks.
#13
Posted by Stu, August 19, 2008 12:53 AM
Yeah. To make it worth doing, the Braves would need something like a $10M payroll increase.
#14
Posted by telemakhos, August 19, 2008 12:57 AM
if it's not worth 20 mil a year to get a top-flight pitcher that gets injured, then is it worth years of player development within your system or is it worth trading away prospects? You have to give something to get something and value isn't always expressed in just dollars. Not sure if everyone will grasp my meaning with my wording, so as an example, the braves could spend 10 years developing a guy from a high school pitcher to a 28 year old ace and miss a very high percentage of the time, or they could spend $20 million a year on a 28 year old ace and miss fairly often, but not as often as with minor leaguers.
#15
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 1:02 AM
Tele, that's pretty much exactly where I stand. In fact I couldn't have said it better myself.
What I can't stand is that fans of every single mid-market team complain if there team trades away prospects and complains about the risk of a long-term signing. For most teams, developing a playoff caliber team is just not a realistic option without some outside help. If you stay away from risks, you end up with a mediocre team and we all know how that feels.
#16
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 1:04 AM
Obviously, the ideal way to build a successful ballclub is to develop from within. Hopefully, within a couple of years Tommy Hanson will be a mainstay of our rotation, alongside Charlie Morton and Jair Jurrjens. The best thing about farm-developed youngsters is that they're cheap enough to be able to afford poor performance. If one struggles, send him back to the farm, and try another one. If you sign a marquee free agent, you can't afford him to struggle. Sabathia won't have any margin for error once he gets the big bucks.
The trouble is that it doesn't really pay to hedge your bets. The contracts that Carlos Silva and Jeff Suppan have gotten in recent years prove that point. The price of mediocrity is so high that the premium for quality isn't that much greater. Even still, though, you have to be smart about your money. If you sign A.J. Burnett, you have to expect he'll get injured; if you sign Ben Sheets, you have to expect he'll get injured. If you sign C.C. Sabathia, don't be shocked if he gets injured.
#17
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 1:10 AM
I thought there was more than 2 $20 million a year players but I guess not. But the Rays have alot of guys on there team that were NOT first round players that are good. Any team could have had Carlos Pena and they signed him for nothin basically. Iwamura they signed from Japan. Navarro they got from the Dodgers for nothin really. Crawford was I think a second round pick. Any team could have had him. They STOLE Kazmir from the Mets. Shields was not a first round pick. Davis was a second round pick. Royster was a second or fourth round pick. Some of there other top prospects were not First round picks.
Longoria, Upton, and Delmon Young which netted them Garza are the ONLY first round players that are helpin that team Will. All the other guys they got ANY team could have had. So what are you talkin about?
#18
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 1:19 AM
I would much rather spend money in the farm system than spending money on ONE guy in the majors. Cause if he sucks or gets hurt your franchise is screwed unless your team is in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles.
#19
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 1:21 AM
Braves#1, good scouting is definitely a necessity and the Rays are the best over the past decade in that category but you are way over-simplifying this thing. Those picks from later rounds that worked out were taken as projects. Guys like Crawford were very athletic but with flaws and they worked out. For every one of those that works out, unfortunately about fifteen don't so there is a reason people passed. The Rays have gotten a talent of high picks (even in later rounds), great scouting, and luck that you really need to be able to build from within like they have.
#20
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 1:25 AM
Mike Hampton has really scared you guys off long-term deals, hasn't he?
#21
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 1:35 AM
Hampton and Zito has Will. We are NOT New York, Chicago or Los Angeles teams.
And Will, they way you was talkin though you was soundin like MOST of there picks were First round and I was sayin that it was not the case. But with them taken a risk on a guy like Crawford was good for them cause it turned out good.
#22
Posted by telemakhos, August 19, 2008 1:40 AM
The braves have 45 mil coming off the books one way or the other. Sure, they could be cheap about it and hang onto that money, but it's extremely probable that the team will be worse than if they spend that money. They could get an outfielder and a few pitchers and have a 100 million dollar payroll to go with a competitive team for years to come with a possibility of having an overpaid mediocre team or they could hang onto their money and have a 50 million dollar mediocre team for years to come. I don't see why you wouldn't spend the money. Sure, there's a risk, but if you hang onto the money, there's a bigger risk of sucking.
#23
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 1:41 AM
Zito is a really different circumstance. Anyone watching him new that he was going down. His stuff just was not there and people figured him out after a while.
As far as the picks, I was saying they got high picks, whether it be first, second, third, etc. If there was a talent projected to go in any of those rounds, they usually got first crack at him. Certainly it is good but at the same time, if you base your picks off those and don't get lucky (they fail), your drafting is looked back on as a failure. And believe me, you go back and look at drafts from early in this decade and you'll realize that far more of them flame out than turn into Crawfords.
#24
Posted by telemakhos, August 19, 2008 2:18 AM
On a different topic, kotsay cleared waivers. If he does get traded, who do you think gets the call up to replace him? josh anderson, brandon jones, and jordan schafer seem to be the most appropriate, but each has his downside. anderson is basically blanco #2 (with some minor differences), bj hasn't done much of anything production-wise this year and with the short amount of time he spent in the majors, I'm not sure how much he impressed the coaching staff, and schafer has just lately started hitting again, but this certainly isn't the scenario anyone envisioned this offseason when discussion was over when he would be called up this year rather than if. any thoughts?
#25
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 2:23 AM
Anderson or Schafer seems the most likely. Right now I'd say Schafer. The organization has got to realize that Anderson and Blanco are not long-term starting options so it makes much more sense to get Schafer some major league experience, especially when he is hitting well of late. There will definitely be bumps in the road with him but better to go over those bumps in meaningless games.
#26
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 2:25 AM
Right after I say that, I saw Jones' August numbers. .328/.425/.597 with five homers and three steals. Certainly making his case for a callup.
#27
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 2:27 AM
If Kotsay gets traded then wonder what we could expect to get for him? Prolly not much but you would think with Crawford hurt that the Rays would definately be interested but Kotsay aint worth no top prospect though so dont know what we will get. Prolly not much but I seriously doubt Kotsay will be a Type B free agent next year cause he didnt play much last year.
#28
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 2:28 AM
Also, Jorge Julio is really impressing in Richmond. He's got dominant stuff, struggled earlier, but in August has 10.2 scoreless innings. He's allowed four hits and two walks this month with 16 strikeouts and his GO/AO for the year is 2.67. If he can show decent control, he could be a bullpen option for next year.
#29
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 2:29 AM
maybe a Chris Mason for Kotsay sounds about right, or we could keep Kotsay and try to resign him next year but he would prolly cost too much.
#30
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 2:30 AM
Braves#1, I don't think he'll be rated. He just doesn't put up enough of the "Sexy stats" and of course was injured as you said.The Braves would probably end up with a low minors prospect with a little upside. Better than nothing though.
#31
Posted by Coach (Lets Go Braves in 2009), August 19, 2008 3:43 AM
In spite of all the innings and debate over his physical conditioning, C.C. Sabathia has never had one single problem with his arm due to pitching, NONE.
Look, the guy is 6-7. His frame can handle all that extra weight. Besides, David Wells was a complete slob during his whole career and pitched until the age of 44.
Sabathia is only 27, he has an eight year average of 34 starts, 221 innings, 15 wins and has been nothing but durable and dependable. The left hander is going to get a monster contract in the 6 to 8 year, 200 million dollar range. Which of course will probably leave the Braves unable to compete.
Besides, Hank Steinbrenner has made it abundantly clear that he will leave no stone unturned in an all out effort to return the Bronx Bombers back to the top of the baseball world. When and if they miss the playoffs this season ( and they will), we can all pretty much cross Mark Teixeira, C.C.Sabathia and Francisco Rodriguez off our Christmas list.
Sabathia has now gone 8-0 with five complete games and an ERA of 1.75 since his trade to Milwaukee. The man's value is skyrocketing with every game he wins.
#33
Posted by telemakhos, August 19, 2008 3:50 AM
coach, you make a good point about the new steinbrenner, but I think K-rod for one will not be gobbled up by the yankees who currently sport a great closer of their own in mariano.
#34
Posted by Coach (Lets Go Braves in 2009), August 19, 2008 6:10 AM
I'm sure that Josh Anderson, Brent Lillibridge and probably Brandon Jones will join the Braves, beyond the three of them is anyone's guess.
Speaking of being left out of the rotational picture for 2009 is Anthony Lerew. He has made 11 starts so far.
#35
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 9:23 AM
Anthony Lerew just doesn't have the stuff to get by in the rotation. If he can stay healthy he might end up as a useful bullpen piece but I doubt he's much more than that and certainly not on the level of guys like Morton or Reyes.
#36
Posted by John Scott, August 19, 2008 9:31 AM
How about experimenting the rest of the season with KJ in left field and Prado as every day second baseman?
#37
Posted by Ron E., August 19, 2008 10:43 AM
This is pretty much a moot point. Whatever dollar amount the Braves are prepared to offer a pitcher like Sabathia, teams like the Yankees, Mets, Red Sox, and Cubs can top plus offering him a better shot at a ring.
#38
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 10:44 AM
David Wells didn't pitch his first full season till he was 25, and didn't pitch his first full season as a starter till he was 27. He didn't put nearly as many miles on his arm when he was young.
he has an eight year average of 34 starts, 221 innings, 15 wins and has been nothing but durable and dependable
That's the 162 game average. His actual numbers in slightly less than 8 years are 246 starts, 1601 2/3 IP, and 114 wins. There are only 5 other pitchers debuting in the last 30 years to accomplish that.
2 of them are Freddy Garcia, who went from elite to average some time in his late twenties, and Tim Hudson, who has continued to pitch well into his early 30's but just had to undergo Tommy John surgery. Both are still active, so we don't know their full career arcs.
The other three are Mark Langston, Frank Viola, and Rick Reuschel. Langston was a very good pitcher in his prime, but he was pretty much finished as an elite pitcher after his career-best age 32 year in 1993, two years after his 8th season. He turned in 2 more league-average seasons, then became a pitcher who was frequently injured and mediocre when healthy.
Frank Viola pitched very well through his age 33 year in 1993, 4 years after his 8th season, but he was almost perpetually injured after that, and only made 15 more starts in three seasons before hanging up his spikes.
Rick Reuschel pitched about 6 and a half full seasons after his 8th season in 1979, but after a full year in 1980 and the strike-shortened 1981 campaign, he missed all of the 1982 season, almost all of the 1983 season, and most of the 1984 season. From then on, he was very erratic: a brilliant 1985 was followed by a mediocre 1986, then a terrific 1987, then an average 1988, then a solid 1989, his last full season.
The odds are, Sabathia will not be able to keep up this workload at the level of success he's previously been used to.
#39
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 11:16 AM
I am not convinced that Sabathia is going to last all 6 years, but the jury is still out, the Braves have a ton of money to spend, and he is the best available pitcher. A competitive offer should be made even if the Braves are doomed to be outbid by the Yankees.
The big X factor in my mind is whether or not Yu Darvish gets posted. If so, the Braves should certainly consider making an offer.
#40
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 11:23 AM
Ron, just because those teams also have money, doesn't mean they'll be spending it. The Mets and Cubs certainly seem to not be looking for starting pitching, while the Yankees aren't just going to keep going up to 30 million or so to beat us. People are just trained to think "outspend anyone" when they hear Yankees but that really hasn't been the case since Steinbrenner handed actual control over to Cashman.
#41
Posted by braves#1, August 19, 2008 1:04 PM
I agree completely with Stu about signing Sabathia to a 3 year 75 million dollar deal. Ok just say we offer that AND Sabathia accepts. If we have 45 million to spend this offseason then that means we will have 20 million left. We spend 14-15 million on a LF or trade for one. Ok and then the rest would I guess go to young players gettin raises or has that already been figured in?
But then the thing about it is we need 2 starters in free agency unless we wanna go with Morton and Reyes in the rotation at the same time which would be fine with me, but dont know if it would be fine with Braves management.
I dont know whats gonna happen but it will be interesting. And I seriously seriously seriously doubt that Sabathia would take a 3 year deal. I am pretty sure he is gonna want AND get a 6 year deal from somebody. It makes no sense to the Braves franchise to offer that big of a contract whether that means we stay in the stone age or not.
#42
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 1:14 PM
Curt, true. Just wanted to deflect any possible argument against being a stat nerd -- I'm not as good at math as those guys. I wasn't actually crunching any numbers, just picking out guys who had done some of what Sabathia's done in his career. I think we're on the same page with a C.C. contract.
#43
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 1:28 PM
Alex et al.,
You guys underestimate A. the Yankees desire to get Sabathia. They may be willing to throw in more guaranteed years and come pretty close to a match on the per-season amount. Plus, for a pitcher, it does make more sense to take the longer term deal. I like the outside the box thinking, but Sabathia will take the higher dollar amount and job security. For him, whether he gets injured or not, he still gets the money. Therefore going for more years and money is worth it.
By the way, Ben Sheets seems likely to be heavily recruited by the Astros who will be willing to shell out some dough as well this offseason. If they are willing to put up the contract, I say let them have him.
Also, speaking of outside the box thinking:
My idea at the beginning of the season of using a 6 man rotation probably doesn't seem so bad in hindsight with all of the Braves injuries now does it? Hate to say I told you so...
Guys like EJ have mentioned picking up Perez to hurt the Mets and help us. I am not opposed to the idea completely, though I don't like Perez.
Along those same lines though, I think the Braves should find a position, hell even make up a position to hire former Mets pitching coach Rick Peterson. I like what he is doing with biomechanical research and fixing pitcher's deliveries. Guys like Chuck James could really benefit, as well as our many other young pitchers.
#44
Posted by Stu, August 19, 2008 2:22 PM
CC does like hitting, though, so I'd think if the deals are close, he'd pick the NL team. Still, yeah, the Yankees have an endless supply of money, so they'll get what they want.
#45
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 2:27 PM
Stu, they probably will. That isn't to say that the Braves shouldn't make an offer, I previously posted that I think they should. I'm just saying the Braves are a long shot even with your idea, which was good.
#46
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 3:07 PM
Andrew, I never said the Yankees wouldn't be able to get C.C. I just said we shouldn't sign him to a long-term deal.
Speaking of outside the box, I think the problem with a 6 man rotation is that it isn't necessarily better for keeping pitchers healthy. At least, no one has argued that it is. All it means is that your best pitchers pitch less frequently. A return to a 4 man rotation, something that Rob Neyer and others have been advocating for years, might be interesting, though. (And I've never seen data that says that pitchers are more likely to get injured on 4 days' rest than on 5 days' rest.) That way we'd have one more arm in our bullpen, our best pitchers would pitch more frequently, and we'd have one fewer crappy guy in the back end of the rotation.
Of course, there's nothing you can do when your entire rotation gets injured. The 2008 Braves were just snakebit.
#47
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 3:09 PM
On the other hand, Andrew, if a 6 man rotation actually did a better job of keeping guys healthy, hell, I'd be open. Health is basically the most important thing in baseball that we don't have a good way of starting to understand.
#48
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 3:23 PM
Alex, I understand your point which you mentioned before. There is no evidence yet that a 6 man rotation works...but when has it been tried?
If I am Bobby Cox at the beginning of the season, I see a team that has October potential. All you have to do is get them there healthy. I also see 2 pitchers over 40 in my rotation (Smoltz and Glavine), one who is always injured (Hampton), and 1 who is really young (Jurrjens). Even later on once Hampton was out, the Braves had a lot of young pitchers.
Now, I know that Coach says that the problem with young pitchers is that they haven't pitched enough, and I agree with him. However, for guys like Morton, Jurrjens, and Reyes that cannot be fixed now. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that pitchers who pitch a lot early in their MLB careers fall apart faster. Its the same reason why you would be hesitant to sign Sabathia for 6 years. Meanwhile, it was already obvious that Smoltz was hurting. I think Hudson was showing evidence of fatigue as well (or do you not remember those games where his fastball lost a few MPH?). In order to stretch things out more, a 6 man rotation would A. give those younger pitchers experience without overpitching them through a whole season. I fear for Jair Jurrjens. He is on pace to pitch over 190 innings this season. Thankfully it seems that management plans to shut him down around 170. B. the older and obviously tired pitchers would have gotten more rest between starts and may have kept them from some of their surgeries.
There is no evidence to back my idea up, because nobody has had the guts to try it yet. I am saying that this would have been the ideal year to give it a try in the Braves situation.
#49
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 3:44 PM
Alex,
I wouldn't be against using a 4 man rotation either...if these were the days of Smoltz, Maddux, Glavine, and Avery. The problem I see these days is that managers don't make moves that make sense. Tony LaRussa moving the pitcher to 8th in the batting order made sense, and it worked. If a team has 4 pitchers in the 28-32 range, all above average or average innings-eaters, than a 4 man rotation makes sense. If a team generally has pitchers who are older, injury risks, or really young like the Braves this year, a 6 man rotation might work. Why is everyone so stuck on a 5 man rotation?
Its the same thing with "closers", the most over-rated position in all of baseball. Any pitcher who can pitch in the majors can be a closer. You want evidence, how many closers did the Braves go through in their 14 division championships. How many games had Adam Wainwright pitched before he closed out the World Series.
The save is a ridiculous stat that keeps managers from using their best managers in the most vital situations. Yet everybody talks about having a great "closer". If the Braves stopped thinking about the 9th inning in 2006 and simply used their best reliever in the toughest situations, then the Braves might have had a much difference season.
#50
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 4:12 PM
"The save is a ridiculous stat that keeps managers from using their best managers in the most vital situations."
-I meant use their best relievers in the most vital situations.
#51
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 4:58 PM
Andrew, I'm all for trying new ideas. And, IIRC, the Mets did effectively have Pedro Martinez on an every-6th-day schedule for a while. So you might be on to something, when it comes to extremely fragile or extremely old pitchers. But I wouldn't want that to keep a healthy Tim Hudson from pitching every 5th day -- over the course of a 162 game season, that might cost him 5 starts, which would then go to an inferior pitcher.
#52
Posted by Andrew (original), August 19, 2008 5:05 PM
Alex, I would agree, but Hudson showed signs of not being 100% pretty early this season...
#53
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 5:35 PM
Agreed; with 20/20 hindsight it's obvious that this is something that's been bothering him for a while. I was really worried when his fastball velocity dipped, but it seemed to come back and he seemed to be the same dominant Hudson we'd seen last year, so I didn't think anything more of it. That's why this took me by surprise. I don't think any of us, back in March, would have expected Hudson to be a Tommy John candidate midway into the season.
#54
Posted by Coach (Lets Go Braves in 2009), August 19, 2008 5:40 PM
Alex , you are not going to convince anyone concerning the probability of C.C. Sabathia becoming an injury risk anytime soon. Sorry Buddy, you're all alone with that idea.
#55
Posted by Alex Remington, August 19, 2008 6:01 PM
Coach, you don't have to believe me, but I'm not the only one who has doubts about Sabathia's health. Just read above:
braves#1: Good research Alex. I completely agree.
Andrew (original): I am not convinced that Sabathia is going to last all 6 years, but the jury is still out, the Braves have a ton of money to spend, and he is the best available pitcher.
Stu: What about something like 3 years, $75-80 million? It’s a whole lot of money per year, but we have a whole lot of budget space in the next couple of years. And you aren’t crippling the organization for many years if he breaks down.
Curt: Either way I agree with your position, but I still believe that he has a couple of years before he disintegrates.
I know I could be wrong -- I'm trying to predict the future, and I've been wrong a lot before. But I'm not the only person who thinks there's a good chance Sabathia will get injured somewhere in the middle of a massive 6-year contract.
#56
Posted by Chris Georges, August 19, 2008 6:37 PM
so because of baseball references comparable pitchers, we shouldnt sign CC? I'm with Will i would be all for signing him to a big deal.
#57
Posted by Coach (Lets Go Braves in 2009), August 19, 2008 6:43 PM
Well , thats why the Braves signed Greg Maddux for five years at the age of 26 after he had averaged 235 innings and 34 starts during the previous six years. The Braves wanted an ace and they got one.
That's what Sabathia is. He's a winner, period. To think any other way is self defeating.
#58
Posted by Coach (Lets Go Braves in 2009), August 19, 2008 6:58 PM
In fact, When Maddux signed his second five year contract with the Braves in August of 1997, he had racked up more than 2300 innings and Maddux was just 31.
All said, injuries are part of the game. Teams assess the risk and do what is necessary to compete.
On the flip side, Ben Sheets is the one pitcher who makes me nervous. His history is well documented.
#59
Posted by EJRuiz, August 19, 2008 8:29 PM
Heyman predicted Sabathia would be 6/$150M and it's been said all along that C.C. would command a Santana-type contract. If you want to cut down on the years by pumping up the yearly value, be prepared to make him baseball's highest paid (and likely first $30M/year) man. The most I'd consider giving him is 5/$100M.
#60
Posted by Big Daddy Dee, August 19, 2008 10:57 PM
I know that I have been called impulsive at times (cough, Will). I just don't see us getting that much better in 2009. I was worried about the 2009 season at the beginning of this year. With Hampton, Smoltz, Huddy, and Glavine potential missing the whole 09 season. Frank Wren has his work cut out for him. It isn't easy for a club to fix 2-3 holes in a rotation over the off-season and have a World Series or playoff contender. Having Jurrjens and Morton to build around next year is a good start. Chuck James shouldn't be counted on anymore period. Jorge Campillo is probably as close to perfect 4-5 starting pitcher as you can get.
Our lineup drastically needs a new look. Adding Jordan Schafer to the mix next year will be a really good idea. Wren and Cox will not be smart if they choose to play Blanco or Anderson everyday over Schafer. Chipper is probably good for about 130-140 games a year. We definitely can't count on the fragile Jones to play everyday. So keeping Omar Infante around is a good idea. We really don't have to go out and sign a LF to a long term contract, with Hernandez and Heyward being ready in a couple of years.
Last year we thought we gave away a low .240 hitter in Andruw Jones. It seems like right now we just groomed another young .240 hitter and Francoeur. I am a big Kelly Johnson fan but, he has been way too inconsistent this year. I truly thought KJ and Frenchy were going to have breakout seasons. As usually, the young Brave players let me down. If I was Cox and Wren I will give Francoeur and KJ one more season to prove what they're worth. If they fail, trade them to another team that wants them. If they succeed keeping, then let them play another year to see if you want to sign them to an extension.
The bullpen will probably be the strongest part of the team with Soriano, Gonzo, Acosta, Carlyle, Bennett Boyer, Moylan, and wild cards Smoltz (could be a SP if healthy), Medlen, and Marek.
With that said, Wren does have money to spend this off-season. I would recommend that he doesn't just go out and sign three guys like Burrell, Sheets, and Lowe. I would like for him to sign may be one or players. Then he will have some more for the 2010 season and that is the year when I believe the Braves will be legit. I say that mainly with our young studs in the majors now getting more seasoned. Also, the potential arrival of guys like Flowers, Heyward, Hernandez, Pruenda, Kimbrel, Diamond, Hicks, Fellman, T.Wilson, W. Cabrera, Mejia (just throwing out some names).
It's still August in the 2008 season, so Wren and the Braves have plenty of enough time to prove me wrong. I would the first to admit that I am wrong and apologize to everyone. I am not here to dog out my favorite baseball team. I am just here to tell my honest opinion on the Braves. Atlanta has to contend in the 2009 season, because we have won 14 consecutive division titles in a row and we are a very well respected organization. As a fan, I don't accept the Braves as a mediocre team and I hope the entire Atlanta staff doesn't either.
#61
Posted by ink-stained scribe, August 19, 2008 11:12 PM
Tonight's game could have pushed me over the edge, but maybe it's time to blow up the roster. I've been thinking all along that a couple of significant additions could put this team in contention in 2009, but that could be wrong.
Declare McCann and Heyward and Jurrjens and Hanson off-limits but consider offers for everyone, and I mean everyone else.
Stop relying on retreads and has-beens and wannabes to fill out spots on the roster.
Find guys with talent and spark and play them.
#62
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 19, 2008 11:57 PM
Ink, do you really think this roster is that far away from being good? I definitely understand the frustration from losing but what helps is to first realize that this season is over and the team is playing for next year. Instead of getting frustrated when the team loses, you look for positive things like the fact that Jo-Jo pitched well against a dangerous lineup and the offense was actually pretty impressive against a left-hander.
As far as the roster, I am very optimistic about next season. If the Braves can ink someone like Burrell, you're looking at a lineup of:
C Brian McCann
1B Casey Kotchman
2B Kelly Johnson
SS Yunel Escobar
3B Chipper Jones
LF Pat Burrell
CF Jordan Schafer (seeming more and more likely)
RF Jeff Francoeur
Not only is that a very impressive defensive team but they can hit and hit well. In addition, with a couple pitching additions, you've got a very solid rotation with some depth in the minors.
Going into an all-out firesale would be very irresponsible on Frank Wren's part because this team, regardless of the frustration they are causing fans right now, is a team that is very close to contention.
#63
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 20, 2008 12:07 AM
Alex, there are a few things wrong with what you just said. First, there just aren't that many baseball players or human beings that are that sized, so it's not shocking that only eleven have reached that. Second, not one of the injuries had to do with height or weight.
#64
Posted by Big Daddy Dee, August 20, 2008 12:26 AM
That lineup looks very good Will, but it seems like it's missing something. May be Francoeur can be that piece to make everyone gell right. btw, I didn't even watch the game today so I am not frustrated at all. I am smart enough to know to take the positives only from the rest of the season and focus on next year. I also think going with a firesale is pretty dumb. Especially with the young and talented players that's about 2-3 years away.
#65
Posted by EJRuiz, August 20, 2008 12:45 AM
No to C.C. and no to Holliday. I'll say yes to Burrell or Dunn on three-year deals or less and the same to Dempster and/or Lowe.
#66
Posted by braves#1, August 20, 2008 12:53 AM
ok let me say it like this for the people that want C.C. If we do this for more than 4 years we should protect ourselves. I say offer him 4 guaranteed years and 3 option years. All the 3 years would each have a clause that would say he has to pitch so and so innings or the option will not count and also a option is if he doesnt pitch that many innings the team can decide to pay him anyway or just let him go without payin his salary. he will be a free agent. I think somethin like that would be the best for us it protects us from him gettin hurt, but of course if he is ineffective then we could move him to the bullpen to make sure that option is voided. Other than that no way on a long term deal.
#67
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 12:53 AM
Will, actually, you might want to go back and look. I doubt that none of the injuries had to do with height or weight. Being that heavy puts a serious strain on the knees and back. Being that tall and pitching downward is a strain. Some of these guys were just fragile -- D'Amico, for instance -- but the fact is, while it's true that very few people are that tall or heavy, almost every pitcher who's that tall and that heavy has gotten injured. I'm not saying there's a definite cause-and-effect. But it appears that there's a correlation.
#68
Posted by telemakhos, August 20, 2008 12:59 AM
big daddy dee, I don't think signing a left fielder long term would be a problem. Right now, frenchy isn't playing like he deserves to start, brandon jones hasn't done much until recently in richmond or in the majors, gorkys has struggled a ton this year (especially if you look at his month by month splits), schafer has had his share of problems, and heyward (although still without a bump in the road yet) is still a long way away. No one is a lock to be a productive major leaguer and my confidence in a lot of these guys has been shaken. I certainly would rather count on these guys to compete for 2 starting spots rather than 3 if I had any say in it.
#69
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 8:54 AM
Jones has enough of a track record in the minors to deserve a shot, as does Brent Lillibridge. If you can believe it, he was actually fairly good in his very limited stint: .278/.316/.463 in 54 at-bats, a .779 OPS that's higher than either of our starting corner outfielders' marks. It's not good, of course, but it's just slightly under league average, which most of our outfielders this year haven't even been able to sniff.
#70
Posted by scott, August 20, 2008 9:48 AM
Two words: Matt Holliday. Yes, he's going to command a fortune but we need a marquee player. Chipper and McCann can't be our only good hitters.
As for CC? I agree: no, no. Go after the pitchers having decent if somewhat quieter years who will at least give us the chance to win. Shaun Marcum? Jeremy Guthrie? Justin Duchscherer? Armando Gallaraga? Ricky Nolasco?
#71
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 9:52 AM
Scott, two more words: Coors Field. Matt Holliday's numbers are extremely inflated by one of the premier hitters' parks in the majors.
Career, home: .365/.430/.663
Career, away: .280/.346/.459
On the road, he turns from Albert Pujols into Sean Casey. With Scott Boras as an agent, he will be wildly overpriced. No thanks.
#72
Posted by scott, August 20, 2008 10:11 AM
Sorry Alex. Don't buy it. The Coors field argument is always thrown out there when talking about Holliday. Well, you know who else is a better hitter at home? Everyone else in baseball!
Plus Holliday's numbers away from Coors Field this year are .317/.410/.520 and he has a good career line at Turner Field. We need a power outfielder and I'd much rather it be Holliday than "strike out 200 times" Adam Dunn.
#73
Posted by Andrew (original), August 20, 2008 10:15 AM
For the Braves, Adam Dunn or Pat Burrell would be just fine in the middle of our lineup. The Braves had a "marquee player" in the lineup named Texeira, and it didn't make much of a difference. The only way the lineup will be fixed is if guys like Francoeur and Johnson can make the proper adjustments. Yunel will probably have to make a few as well. If they do, the Braves lineup in 2009 will be as good as any in the NL East, or the NL period.
The pitching is the question. Campillo should be fine. Jurrjens should be too if his arm doesn't fall off. Between Morton and Reyes the #2, #4, and #5/6 spots in the rotation are filled out. The question marks are the #1 and #3 starter.
I think the Braves can compete in 2009. It won't be a cakewalk, but they should be competetive. In 2010, Tim Hudson returns. Assuming the Braves retain whomever they get to fill in the #1 spot next year, the Braves will have a 1-2-3 punch with Hudson and Jurrjens that would rival Smoltz, Glavine, Maddux.
I also think that the Braves should re-sign Hampton to a small contract. It can't hurt if it's only $1 million or less.
#74
Posted by Andrew (original), August 20, 2008 10:38 AM
Also, Coach, I think there is a difference between Maddux and Sabathia in that Maddux defeats batters with finesse and guile. Sabathia overpowers batters. Correct me if I am wrong, but throwing like Sabathia logically puts more stress on the ligaments of the arm, thus making him more likely to break down than Maddux.
#75
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 11:51 AM
In addition, his height and weight are both concerns.
Since 2000, there have only been 11 pitchers who are at least 6'6, 240 lbs, who have thrown at least 100 innings. C.C. Sabathia, Aaron Harang, Chris Young, Scott Elarton, Jeff D'Amico, Andy Benes, Blake Stein, Josh Johnson, Andrew Sisco, Randy Messenger, and Jason Hirsh.
Blake Stein has been out of baseball since 2002, after being released by the Royals for ineffectiveness. Andy Benes has been out of baseball since 2002 following three seasons shortened by a knee injury. Jeff D'Amico has been out of baseball since 2004 following a variety of injuries -- shoulder, radial nerve, wrist.
Scott Elarton was on the DL for much of the year with what was listed as a "non-baseball related medical condition," but he's previously had labrum surgery and, like D'Amico, has never pitched 200 innings. Jason Hirsh hasn't pitched this year because of a rotator cuff strain from Sprint Training. Andrew Sisco has been out all year following Tommy John surgery. Josh Johnson just came back this year from Tommy John surgery. Chris Young was out for a while this season after being hit by a line drive, but last year had to be placed on the DL due to a back injury.
Randy Messenger has spent the year in the minors (because he isn't very good). Messenger, Aaron Harang, and C.C. Sabathia are the only members of the list not to have serious injury problems. Yet.
#76
Posted by braves#1, August 20, 2008 1:03 PM
And also not tryin to be sooooo pessimistic here but we will have Bobby Cox back next year. Listen I like Bobby and RESPECT what he did for us ALL those years. And I DONT blame him for us winning only 1 world series championship. Thats 1 more than alot of teams during that stretch. But he has lost it now. I thought last year that he should not have come back this year cause he was not good last year at all. There is A reason why we have the major league record for most consecutive 1 run losses on the road. I know some is cause of luck but listen it aint NO team has that bad of luck. He is downright ATROCIOUS during bullpen management. He overuses the pitchers and crap like that that is why we suck in that area. Until Bobby Cox leaves we will NOT make the playoffs again. thats just the way it is. Like I said I respect and like Bobby Cox but it is time for him to leave until then this is what this team will be like.
Yes I understand we were snakebitten but we were losen at the beginning of the year and looked like crap before the injuries started. The Phillies had a SLEW of injuries last year and STILL made the playoffs so dont bring that crap up if your gonna argue with me about this.
#77
Posted by Edo River, August 20, 2008 1:42 PM
I add my voice to the "NO vote" on C. C.
Why use all that money to fill one hole, when we have more than one hole to fill? I know you7re gonna argue that we can do "everything".....sure "everything that you want us to do”is not going to get us into the playoffs in?2009. I see too many problems with our lineup. CC can only win one game every 5th day. Los Bravos need more than one quality pitcher to win the WS.
#78
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 20, 2008 2:16 PM
Alex, one of them had a knee injury and that was the only height or weight-related injury. The rest are arm injuries and have nothing to do the pitcher's size. In fact it is better generally for a pitcher's arm to be bigger. That weight allows them to put more force behind the ball and less strain on shoulder and elbow if they have the right mechanics.
#79
Posted by Andrew (original), August 20, 2008 2:24 PM
Will, I think you are incorrect. back injuries are often the product of height, but weight can exacerbate those problems.
Again, CC Sabathia is the best pitcher out there. I don't think 6 years is a good idea, but a 5 year contract for a sizeable amount should be offered. It is a risk I think is worth taking especially as we aren't likely to get him anyways.
#80
Posted by Andrew (original), August 20, 2008 2:36 PM
Also guys, Just read this article:
http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/08/looking-ahead/
In it, JC Bradbury proposes a fire sale, in other words:
Chipper
KJ
Kotchman
Infante
Read the article yourself, and make up your own mind. I really don't know what to think.
#81
Posted by Will Schaffer, August 20, 2008 2:54 PM
Didn't see young's back injury either but I don't believe that is size-related. Back injuries can be are much more a product of being overweight than being tall. Young is not overweight by and stretch.
As far as Bradbury's article, I completely disagree. He seems to mostly base his argument off of the rotation that he lists but ignores the fact that the Braves are looking for two top of the rotation starters on the free agent market. If the Braves end up with Sheets and Garland or another combo of some of the top free agents, they've got a very strong rotation and a very good offense with an addition of an outfielder.
#82
Posted by bmac, August 20, 2008 3:01 PM
JC articulated my thoughts precisely, and much better than I ever could have. Our prime prospects are in the lower minors, and won't be ready for next year, and as such, we should be building, and spending (or not spending) towards 2010, not 2009. I agree with JC.
#83
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 3:10 PM
Young isn't overweight, he's merely one of the tallest pitchers in history. I have read -- and, sadly, don't remember where -- that the extra downward motion that an extremely tall pitcher must exert to bring the ball down to the catcher's mitt places a strain on him.
#84
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 3:12 PM
Here's what I've already written about JC's article:
As usual, I think JC’s got some fascinating ideas — and I’ve personally advocated trading Infante, because I think he’s basically having his career year — but I don’t support the idea of trading Johnson or Kotchman. Unless Martin Prado is able to make some fairly massive defensive adjustments in the offseason, which is unlikely, he won’t really be able to be a starting second baseman. And we don’t have anyone else who’d really be capable of filling Kelly’s or Kotchman’s spots in the lineup. And trying to patch the holes with cheap veterans is something I’d like, for once, to avoid.
Kelly and Casey are not ideal — they’re adequate, and Kelly’s above-average for his position, but they aren’t that great — and they can’t hit enough to compensate for holes elsewhere. Kelly’s regression this year may be a typical sophomore slump, or it may demonstrate his limitations as an everyday player. He’s certainly not an ideal person for us to hang our hats on. But he’s the best we’ve got, and I’m not sure how we’d be able to get anyone else who’d be as good.
Casey Kotchman, again, isn’t great, and his offensive regression this year is similarly disappointing (it’s also probably the reason the Angels traded him and we obtained him in the first place). His cheapness certainly gives him value. But the Braves’ post-Galarraga 1B wasteland makes me pause at the notion that we can afford to trade away a cheap, somewhat productive first baseman just because we can find another one somewhere. Canizares, it seems, will never get a chance to prove himself; I’m not sure who else the Braves should target, as long as we’re assuming that we wouldn’t be able to afford Tex.
#85
Posted by telemakhos, August 20, 2008 3:15 PM
andrew, that's probably the worst idea I've heard proposed as to what to do with this team. First of all, a team doesn't need an all star, game breaker type of player at every position. Next year, jordan schafer should be ready. If nothing else, he provides great defense and more offense than blanco. In left, a free agent would be great, but if the braves don't end up signing one, then they have plenty of unspectacular, but serviceable replacements (diaz, norton, b jones, blanco, anderson) who could be made more effective using a platoon. In right, frenchy has been terrible, but he'll be the starting right fielder if the braves sign a free agent or not, so we're stuck with him and we'll have to hope he turns it around. The infield is set with mostly young guys who are all above average hitters and at least average defenders. There are plenty of bullpen options, as big daddy dee noted earlier, with guys like Soriano, Gonzo, Acosta, Carlyle, Bennett, Boyer, Moylan, and possibly smoltz, medlen, and marek making contributions. The rotation, as it stands has jurrjens, campillo, morton, and reyes, who should make up at least 3 solid members of the rotation, if not 4. An ace would need to be signed for this rotation to be good, but options for 3 through 5 on the market abound, including a cheap option in hampton (bet that phrase hasn't been written in years). The author of that article is counting on this team not being able to find 4 competant replacements any time in the next 3 years. with 45 million at their disposal and a strong minor league system, I don't see any way the braves don't find 4 solid players.
#86
Posted by telemakhos, August 20, 2008 3:19 PM
bmac, I also have thought that 2010 is the more likely year for the braves to compete, but to trade away kotchman, kelly, and chipper is by no means a good strategy for competing in 2010.
#87
Posted by telemakhos, August 20, 2008 3:21 PM
by any chance, was JC joking? I don't see why you would trade away the 3 guys that you have no possibility of replacing (and he also takes away the only possible replacement/spot starter for chipper in infante)
#88
Posted by Curt, August 20, 2008 3:27 PM
I agree with Will. I think you can position the team to be a winner in 2009 and a viable contender in 2010 but I don't think we have to sell off the team to do it. That said, I don't think we should throw a ton of money at any single player ala CC, Holiday or Dunn. You get a couple of B arms (maybe a B+ and a B) for the rotation and a good LF. That makes you strong in 2009, but Hudson comes back in 2010, JJ will be more polished and maybe the other arms (Morton, James, etc) will have worked out the kinks.
Every dollar that we don't spend can be used in the 2009 offseason to put us over the top.
#89
Posted by Alex Remington, August 20, 2008 3:28 PM
Telemakhos, he advocates trading Chipper, so obviously the team wouldn't need a spot starter for Chipper.
#1
Posted by Stu, August 19, 2008 12:03 AM
What about something like 3 years, $75-80 million? It's a whole lot of money per year, but we have a whole lot of budget space in the next couple of years. And you aren't crippling the organization for many years if he breaks down.
If you were Sabathia, would you take 3/75 or 5/100?
Reply