My emotional side certainly agrees with you. How could it not? Smoltz is an icon, one of the greatest players ever to don a tomahawk. And there’s certainly a good chance that he’ll put in productive innings again next year. I was mad and hurt, too, when i heard the news.

But take a step back, take a deep breath (hell, get mad and wait until tomorrow to do it) and think about it for a minute. We’re coming off a 2008 season that was doomed because 4 of 5 projected starters were lost for two or more months due to injury. Right off the bat we know Smoltz wouldn’t be ready until at least May. And he’s been a health risk the entire decade. Can we really afford to take that kind of risk in 2009? Wren said going in to the off season that we wouldn’t be counting on Smoltz or Glavine returning. Didn’t we all applaud that?
Sure, Smoltz was brilliant in the starts he was able to make, but he was playing hurt, as he has been for years. The Red Sox are in a position where they can take that chance. The Braves aren’t and made Smoltz an offer reflecting that. It’s a good move for the Red Sox and it’s a good move for the Braves. And it’s Smoltz’s right to decide that going to the Red Sox is in his best interest.
Seriously, people. He made five starts last year. Five. We should have guaranteed more than $5 million on the chance (CHANCE) that he would be healthy for two thirds of a baseball season?
But this sort of underscores something else. Braves fans (and players, apparently) need to get over this notion of “loyalty.” Teams don’t owe the players a single bit more than the dollars they agree to pay on the contract for the period of time they agreed to pay. Players don’t owe teams anything more than to play their hardest and represent their team for the period they are under contract. Major league baseball players have fought hard to make sure they have their free agent rights and their guaranteed, multi-year contracts, so it’s a little jarring to hear them asking for loyalty as well.
What about players taking less money to play with the Braves in the past? Is that loyalty? We heard a lot about “hometown discounts” during our 14 year run (over 3 years ago, by the way). But that was never about, “I’m going to take less because I love the Braves.” It wasn’t selflessness. It wasn’t loyalty. If you signed with the Braves, you knew you were going to play in October. It was Mark Teixeira taking less with the Yankees than with the Nationals. It’s a lot easier being loyal to a franchise when you know they’re going to win. That’s worth something.
Notice Smoltz didn’t sign with some bottom dwelling franchise.
As J.C. Bradbury pointed out, we’ve already paid him $130 million (including a value I’ll leave someone else to figure out for ample time he spent on the bench injured).
We let him go to the bullpen when he decided that was the best place for him to pitch. We let him come back to the starting rotation when he decided that was best. We signed him for $14 million dollars last year knowing that he was playing hurt and let him call the shots on his offseason program.
The Braves have done right by John Smoltz. Here’s what the Braves offered, by the way:
The Braves would have paid Smoltz incrementally based on his health up to a maximum of $5 million if he remained on the major league roster for 60 days, and the guarantee was for no more than $3 million. The offer also included another $5 million in performance bonuses and $2 million in additional incentives. So Smoltz could have earned up to $12 million by staying healthy and pitching extremely well.
Who’s to blame here? No one is to blame. Things worked out exactly how they should have.
I wish Smoltz all the best and hope he has a fabulous season in Boston. Now let’s go sign Derek Lowe and a bat and get ready for February 14.