There are few scenarios where I would do it...

[Horsehide Harry]

But, given the right deal I would still trade Freeman. My reasoning is that it is highly unlikely that the Braves will be anywhere near competitive in 2018. I would say that with the apparent payroll constraints and the slowed development of the first wave of pitching prospects (Folty, Wisler, Blair, etc.), and to a certain extent the second wave (mostly injury so far - Gohara, Weigel, Allard, Fried, etc) it looks suspect that they can really compete in 2019 - but I admit that they should begin to ramp up into their window in 2019 else the whole rebuild is in jeopardy. With that taken as the baseline of my thinking, it appears to me that Freeman's best years will be spent toiling away on a team that can't or is unlikely to win.

There are a few real competitors who could use a 1B like Freeman in 2018 and beyond and would have the type players to send in return that the Braves would need to be competitive soon and for an extended period of time.

Again, I AM NOT saying give Freeman away. I'm saying if you can replace his expected WAR in the 2020 season and beyond with the young talent that you get back in trade AND move his $20+M per year contract allowing you to go address other needs with that money then you should do it.

As a for instance: Houston. They need a 1B and have the high end prospects needed to make a deal worthwhile. For them it would be about maximizing their opportunity while they are definitely in their window. Freeman for Tucker, Whitley (his PED suspension devalues him a bit in trade value) and Gilberto Celestino.

Yankees: Freeman and $10M for Gleyber Torres, Estevan Florial, Albert Abreu and Brett Gardner (the $10M balances Freeman and Gardner for 2018 and allows the Yanks to stay under the LT threshold)

Cardinals: Freeman and Teheran and $8M for Adam Wainwright, Alex Reyes, Jack Flaherty, Carson Kelly and Harrison Bader.

All those deals would bring significant talent back to the Braves aligned with a 2019-2020 type run and would clear payroll space (Freeman and possibly Teheran's salary) for participation in the FA class between 2018-2019.

The trades definitely help the other teams short term as Freeman would be a big piece (possibly the missing piece) for a WS run. It hurts their farm systems (and it should) but it doesn't completely devastate them.

In the Houston deal there's a reasonable chance Tucker provides more WAR than Freeman by 2020 by himself and Whitley has a better chance to be a TOR pitcher than anyone in the Braves system.

The Yankees deal the Braves fix 3B, the OF add another high end arm and pick up a movable OF piece for short term.

The Cardinals deal would provide the starting catcher of the near future, a starting OF and two potential high end arms.

Riley could move to 1B which is probably a better position for him anyway. And the Braves would have a lot of cash to play in the second tier market in the offseason going after guys like Donaldson, Blackmon, Pollock, Kimbrel, etc.

[nsacpi]

There are some scenarios where I would trade Acuna. My reasoning is that it is highly unlikely that the Braves will be anywhere near competitive in 2018...

[chop2chip]

There was a time to trade Freeman (2016 / 2017), but at this point we are about to graduate a ton of cheap, hopefully good players. It makes more sense to push all our chips to the 2019 window and try to maximize that 3-5 year window, especially since we are a small payroll team. With every team basically the same analytically-driven team building strategies, the only teams that can really afford to stretch competitive windows out are the teams that can buy amateur talent.

The alternative is you follow the Rays model and shoot for 84 wins every year and hope that in a given year you lucky. I think the Braves are at least in a position in the new ballpark where they can afford to carry a couple big contracts, so they can really push their chips to the middle every now and again.

[nsacpi]

There was a time to trade Freeman (2016 / 2017), but at this point we are about to graduate a ton of cheap, hopefully good players. It makes more sense to push all our chips to the 2019 window and try to maximize that 3-5 year window, especially since we are a small payroll team. With every team basically the same analytically-driven team building strategies, the only teams that can really afford to stretch competitive windows out are the teams that can buy amateur talent.

The alternative is you follow the Rays model and shoot for 84 wins every year and hope that in a given year you lucky. I think the Braves are at least in a position in the new ballpark where they can afford to carry a couple big contracts, so they can really push their chips to the middle every now and again.

The window opens in 2019 plus or minus a year. Whether it is a long or short window really is going to turn on how well we draft after the window opens and our draft position drops into the lower half.

I think we'll be about a 90 win team for 3-4 years. Beyond that things will turn on the next few drafts.

[Knucksie]

It's not as if you haven't said this before...

[chop2chip]

The window opens in 2019 plus or minus a year. Whether it is a long or short window really is going to turn on how well we draft after the window opens and our draft position drops into the lower half.

I think we'll be about a 90 win team for 3-4 years. Beyond that things will turn on the next few drafts.

Exactly, which is why (since I definitely didn't make this clear in my first post) it makes much more sense to keep Freeman and sign a high-priced free agent or two to pair with the upcoming contention window, instead of waiting for Acuna/Albies, etc. to enter their prime.

Plus one added benefit, if the Braves can compete while Acuna/Albies are pre-arb then I think it would be more likely for these players to be willing to sign an extension that buys out a free agent year or two. If you look at recent history, Freddie has been quoted as saying he signed his extension with the expectation that the Braves would be competitive. I don't think he would have done that if he knew he was going to be a part of a rebuild.

[nsacpi]

Exactly, which is why (since I definitely didn't make this clear in my first post) it makes much more sense to keep Freeman and sign a high-priced free agent or two to pair with the upcoming contention window, instead of waiting for Acuna/Albies, etc. to enter their prime.

Plus one added benefit, if the Braves can compete while Acuna/Albies are pre-arb then I think it would be more likely for these players to be willing to sign an extension that buys out a free agent year or two. If you look at recent history, Freddie has been quoted as saying he signed his extension with the expectation that the Braves would be competitive. I don't think he would have done that if he knew he was going to be a part of a rebuild.

Yeah. I think a team like the Marlins, to pick an extreme example, has developed such a poor reputation that they will have trouble signing players to extensions.

[zbhargrove]

You're crazy HH... the pieces are easily in place to where we can compete in 2019. Whichever positions look to be weakest, sign one or two free agents and/or make a trade and we should be right there.

[zbhargrove]

The more and more I contemplate this post the more and more ridiculous it is... trading FF at this point would be so dumb.

[Enscheff]

Hey, does HH think the Braves should trade Freeman? I don't think he's ever mentioned his opinion on the matter.

[Horsehide Harry]

Hey, does HH think the Braves should trade Freeman? I don't think he's ever mentioned his opinion on the matter.

As I said, only under the right circumstances.

There's no guarantee that any of the teams above do any of the deals I listed. i think there's a possibility because of the position of the teams in question. However, IF they did, I think the Braves would be better off moving Freeman than keeping him, even now.

The problem as I see it is that Freeman's prime has been, or will be over the next couple of years, wasted by the fact that the Braves were and are rebuilding.

I think people get caught up on names because they like the player. Let's say Freeman will probably bring you 6/5/5/4 WAR (or 20 WAR) over the next four years at a cost of about $21.5M per year then hit FA.

So, any trade to just be equal to the trade of Freeman would have to return 6/5/5/4 WAR over the next 4 years or 20 WAR. To get to that 20 WAR you have some combination of WAR acquired from the trade and signed by the freeing up of the $21.5M per year. If you use the current average $ per WAR of $8M then if the Braves just sign an average value with the $21.5M they free from trading Freeman that's 2.5 WAR per year or 10 WAR. So for the move to be a win, the Braves would need to recognize more than 10 total WAR from the players they recieve back in trade. As long as you don't completely screw up the trade, that should be easy.

Look for instance at the Houston trade I proposed (disregard an arguments as to whether Houston would do the trade since I wouldn't take less: Tucker is essentially the same player as Acuna as far as how he is regarded. How many WAR has everyone been projecting for Acuna over the next four years? 12-16 is what I've seen. Let's say Tucker provides the low end of the Acuna spectrum at 12. Add that to the average output you get from $21.5M per year over the next 4 years and you have 22 WAR or about 10% better than keeping Freeman even without adding ANY WAR contribution from Whitley and/or Celestino. If you say Celestino busts and you get nothing and Whitley only develops into Folty where you get 2 WAR per year, then you still end up at 30 WAR vs the 20 you get by keeping Freeman.

But what about injury you say? I would argue that its a difference between catastrophe and probability. If you turn Freeman into 4 players (ex. Tucker, Whitley, Celestino, FA signee - call the four the alt Freeman) chances are that at some point one or more will get hurt and miss time costing you WAR. But, chances also are that you won't lose all your WAR unless you are just very, very unlucky. OTOH, if you lose Freeman it's a catastrophic loss because you lose all his WAR while he is out. It gets more nuanced as well because what if Freeman gets hurt in 2018 when his expected WAR is highest?

If Freeman's WAR profile over the next 4 years is 6/5/5/4 and the Alt Freeman is 4/5/5/6 which scenario is better for a team looking to contend but not ready in 2018?

Now look BEYOND 2021. No Freeman unless he is re-signed. His $21.5M probably buys you 2 WAR then instead of 2.5. Whereas if you do the trade, you still have the 2+ controlling years on the players you received in trade and get to spend the $21.5M as well.

[BeanieAntics]

Harry a couple more posts and you will have a full dissertation about why the Braves should trade Freddie Freeman.

[steveAKAslick]

Harry a couple more posts and you will have a full dissertation about why the Braves should trade Freddie Freeman.

Lol...full on senior thesis

[thethe]

Only reason I could see it making sense is that it's easier to replace offensive production at first and it is nice to have the position open long term for any htting prospects that can't field their position well enough at the major league level.

Even with that I'm not trading freeman as we are about to be competitive.

[Carp]

Worst. Idea. Ever.

We should be competing for a playoff spot next year. Certainly 2020 by the latest. We aren't getting a Kings random for Freddie at this point. As good as he is, he's owed 80 million over the next 4 years, and while that is certainly better than market rates, it's far from a bargain. So if we aren't getting multiple top 50 prospects in return that are close to the majors, then it makes zero sense to trade Freeman given our competitive window. We likely will not be able to replace his production cheaply, which means we'll have to sign a FA 1B, a decent one will cost at least 15 million most likely, so you aren't really saving much money.

We need to spend the 2018- 2019 money that's been freed up to upgrade the major league team. Bring in a legit 3b or LFer to pair with Freddie and the young guys. Possibly sign a veteran pitcher like Gio to complement our young staff. A catcher like Yasmani Grandal would be nice. Or may be sure up the pen with a couple of relief pitchers.

[Horsehide Harry]

Harry a couple more posts and you will have a full dissertation about why the Braves should trade Freddie Freeman.

It's more about how best to rebuild the team as opposed to Freeman in particular. It just so happens that Freeman is the player in question. I LIKE Freeman. If the Braves didn't have pot holes all over the field and/or had legit offense ready to go in the minors to quickly fill those holes, I might believe differently.

As it is, I think the Braves will be just good enough to not be bad but not good enough to really be good. Because of that, I think Freemans best value to the Braves is in the form of what he can bring back in trade. And, BTW, it's probably best for him and his career IF he really wants to win. If h goes to one of the three teams I listed he's got a real shot at a WS title over the next 3-4 years. If he stays with the Braves he may get a shot at a WC and maybe an outside chance at a Division title. But the Team won't win a WS UNLESS they get really, really lucky.

[Horsehide Harry]

Worst. Idea. Ever.

We should be competing for a playoff spot next year. Certainly 2020 by the latest. We aren't getting a Kings random for Freddie at this point. As good as he is, he's owed 80 million over the next 4 years, and while that is certainly better than market rates, it's far from a bargain. So if we aren't getting multiple top 50 prospects in return that are close to the majors, then it makes zero sense to trade Freeman given our competitive window. We likely will not be able to replace his production cheaply, which means we'll have to sign a FA 1B, a decent one will cost at least 15 million most likely, so you aren't really saving much money.

We need to spend the 2018- 2019 money that's been freed up to upgrade the major league team. Bring in a legit 3b or LFer to pair with Freddie and the young guys. Possibly sign a veteran pitcher like Gio to complement our young staff. A catcher like Yasmani Grandal would be nice. Or may be sure up the pen with a couple of relief pitchers.

Your post is a classic example of seeing what you expect to see or want to see as opposed to what was really in the post. You were able to generate your post so I can't justify calling you ignorant and I can't believe that you are just willfully misunderstanding. So, I would ask you to go back and read what was written carefully. At no point to I advocate giving Freeman away or even trading him for far away talent.

I'm saying his WAR for 2018 is largely irrelevant since the rest of the team isn't ready. If you replace his WAR for 2019 with equal or better WAR which is what I have proposed then you are at least as good off and IMO better.

Try not to be emotional. If there's a player people like, they tend to get emotional and lose perspective on a conversation.

I LIKE Freeman. He's a vary good player who often is great. BUT, IMO the Braves don't have the luxury of misusing the value of their assets, especially in non-competitive years.

[zbhargrove]

Hey guys I would trade FF too only under the right circumstances... FF for Mike Trout guys.

[zbhargrove]

Your post is a classic example of seeing what you expect to see or want to see as opposed to what was really in the post. You were able to generate your post so I can't justify calling you ignorant and I can't believe that you are just willfully misunderstanding. So, I would ask you to go back and read what was written carefully. At no point to I advocate giving Freeman away or even trading him for far away talent.

I'm saying his WAR for 2018 is largely irrelevant since the rest of the team isn't ready. If you replace his WAR for 2019 with equal or better WAR which is what I have proposed then you are at least as good off and IMO better.

Try not to be emotional. If there's a player people like, they tend to get emotional and lose perspective on a conversation.

I LIKE Freeman. He's a vary good player who often is great. BUT, IMO the Braves don't have the luxury of misusing the value of their assets, especially in non-competitive years.

The problem is it isn't our non-competitive years. It's pretty obvious that we have a real shot to be very competitive next year. He's more than just very good. He's a star. You're advocate trading our only star we've developed right when we are a ot to be competitive again. That's fantastic logic.

[Horsehide Harry]

The problem is it isn't our non-competitive years. It's pretty obvious that we have a real shot to be very competitive next year. He's more than just very good. He's a star. You're advocate trading our only star we've developed right when we are a ot to be competitive again. That's fantastic logic.

The Braves won't be competitive in 2018. It may look like they will for a while because the schedule is extremely easy early, so if they go into the All-Star break under .500 look out, but the offense is awful, likely worse than last year, the pen is completely untested and the SP is made up of uncertain youngsters and veterans held together with pins and tape. Yes, there are individual areas for excitement: the development of Albies, Acuna and Swanson, hopefully some of the young pitching, etc. But it isn't a good TEAM.

So the hope is they begin to gel a bit in 2019. Freeman will supply about 5 WAR for that season. If you can get 2.5 WAR out of the players you received in trade and 2.5 WAR out of the money that you saved by trading Freeman, then you have covered what you would have gotten out of Freeman. Of course it's not that simple unless the players that you get your WAR out of are replacing players where you got 0 WAR the previous year, like for instance playing Tucker in place of Lane Adams or Markakis and Donaldson in place of Camargo, plus whoever plays 1B adds WAR as well in theory.

Or you could KEEP Freeman and his 5 WAR, add Donaldson and his 5 WAR, eating up the majority of the money that you have to use, try to limp by with a replacement level OF next to Inciarte and Acuna and a catcher replacing Flowers and Suzuki, hope for a WC and watch the team get old and expensive by the end of 2021.

[nsacpi]

I will make the observation that the most valuable years of most players (measured from a surplus value perspective) are their pre-arb seasons. So if the concern is not wasting valuable years during non-competitive seasons, and further if you believe 2018 and 2019 to be likely non-competitive seasons, then the logic that argues for trading Freeman even more powerfully applies to Acuna and Albies. I don't agree with the premises of the argument. But if you take the premises and apply the logic, then the conclusion follows.

Abstracting from positional need, any contending team that would love to have Freeman this year and next would love to have Acuna and Albies even more.

[BeanieAntics]

I will make the observation that the most valuable years of most players (measured from a surplus value perspective) are their pre-arb seasons. So if the concern is not wasting valuable years during non-competitive seasons, and further if you believe 2018 and 2019 to be likely non-competitive seasons, then the logic that argues for trading Freeman even more powerfully applies to Acuna and Albies. I don't agree with the premises of the argument. But if you take the premises and apply the logic, then the conclusion follows.

Abstracting from positional need, any contending team that would love to have Freeman this year and next would love to have Acuna and Albies even more.

Okay this might sound stupid but just roll with me...

We trade Acuna, Albies, Freeman and any other value for 8-9 top 100 prospects to add to our already 9ish top 100 prospects. Out of those 17, probably 6-7 of them will hit and we can trade them for about 25 top prospects. Out of those probably 9-10 will hit then we can trade those for like 35 top 100 prospects. THEN we can rinse and repeat until we have every top 100 prospect in baseball


THEN!!! We can trade those hundred guys for the top 300ish in baseball and literally never have to worry about our farm system ever again. Guys I think I have just life hacked roster construction.

[nsacpi]

Okay this might sound stupid but just roll with me...

We trade Acuna, Albies, Freeman and any other value for 8-9 top 100 prospects to add to our already 9ish top 100 prospects. Out of those 17, probably 6-7 of them will hit and we can trade them for about 25 top prospects. Out of those probably 9-10 will hit then we can trade those for like 35 top 100 prospects. THEN we can rinse and repeat until we have every top 100 prospect in baseball


THEN!!! We can trade those hundred guys for the top 300ish in baseball and literally never have to worry about our farm system ever again. Guys I think I have just life hacked roster construction.

Well a lot of perfectly valid arguments suffer from reductio ad asurdum.

But Harry is nothing if not logical and consistent. I think he has always viewed a contending window where the team sits at about 90 expected wins as not something worthy of shooting for. He wants a great team, which I believe he would say is one that sits 95 or higher on the expected win curve. To accomplish this he is willing to suffer as many years in the wilderness as necessary. So this rinse and repeat process that you described rather well doesn't go on forever. It goes on until you reach a certain point on the expected win curve. That's my take on Harry's argument.

[Horsehide Harry]

I will make the observation that the most valuable years of most players (measured from a surplus value perspective) are their pre-arb seasons. So if the concern is not wasting valuable years during non-competitive seasons, and further if you believe 2018 and 2019 to be likely non-competitive seasons, then the logic that argues for trading Freeman even more powerfully applies to Acuna and Albies. I don't agree with the premises of the argument. But if you take the premises and apply the logic, then the conclusion follows.

Abstracting from positional need, any contending team that would love to have Freeman this year and next would love to have Acuna and Albies even more.

I expect better from you.

You conveniently leave out age. Freeman will be 30 in 2020 with only 2 years left on his contract at $22M per. Yeah, that's the same.

[nsacpi]

I expect better from you.

You conveniently leave out age. Freeman will be 30 in 2020 with only 2 years left on his contract at $22M per. Yeah, that's the same.

Actually I don't think age is as relevant to the argument as you think. It is indirectly accounted for anyhow (through the aging curve) in any calculation of expected surplus value. Put another way, Albies and Acuna are going to depreciate more as assets to the club over the next two years than Freeman will. Young pre-arb players have the highest depreciation rate of any category of player. It seems paradoxical because they are still improving while older players are going downhill. The reason for it is that their production relative to cost is so high in those pre-arb years, and you never get that back as you burn through those years.

[zbhargrove]

The Braves won't be competitive in 2018. It may look like they will for a while because the schedule is extremely easy early, so if they go into the All-Star break under .500 look out, but the offense is awful, likely worse than last year, the pen is completely untested and the SP is made up of uncertain youngsters and veterans held together with pins and tape. Yes, there are individual areas for excitement: the development of Albies, Acuna and Swanson, hopefully some of the young pitching, etc. But it isn't a good TEAM.

So the hope is they begin to gel a bit in 2019. Freeman will supply about 5 WAR for that season. If you can get 2.5 WAR out of the players you received in trade and 2.5 WAR out of the money that you saved by trading Freeman, then you have covered what you would have gotten out of Freeman. Of course it's not that simple unless the players that you get your WAR out of are replacing players where you got 0 WAR the previous year, like for instance playing Tucker in place of Lane Adams or Markakis and Donaldson in place of Camargo, plus whoever plays 1B adds WAR as well in theory.

Or you could KEEP Freeman and his 5 WAR, add Donaldson and his 5 WAR, eating up the majority of the money that you have to use, try to limp by with a replacement level OF next to Inciarte and Acuna and a catcher replacing Flowers and Suzuki, hope for a WC and watch the team get old and expensive by the end of 2021.
I never said 2018... I said next year. Your scenario is assinine at this stage.

[zbhargrove]

I expect better from you.

You conveniently leave out age. Freeman will be 30 in 2020 with only 2 years left on his contract at $22M per. Yeah, that's the same.

So that's 3-4 years of control of a star in his prime years while we are also likely to be competitive... yeah smart.

[bravesfanMatt]

I also don’t think we get that much value out of Freeman. He is a great player on a pretty ok contract. But teams are not giving up three great prospect that are really close like that. Remember what people here said when the fish wanted Acuna for yelich. Yeah. That is what Houston would say if you asked for those three for freeman.

[Horsehide Harry]

Well a lot of perfectly valid arguments suffer from reductio ad asurdum.

But Harry is nothing if not logical and consistent. I think he has always viewed a contending window where the team sits at about 90 expected wins as not something worthy of shooting for. He wants a great team, which I believe he would say is one that sits 95 or higher on the expected win curve. To accomplish this he is willing to suffer as many years in he wilderness as necessary. So this rinse and repeat process that you described rather well doesn't go on forever. It goes on until you reach a certain point on the expected win curve. That's my take on Harry's argument.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're moving closer to my thinking but missing the totality which is that a 90 win team with limited resources has little chance to win anything of substance AND has little chance to pull itself into a different realm of resources. It reaches a high water mark then recedes quickly back because it doesn't have the resources to put itself over the top NOR keep itself close for long.

BUT, a small market club with limited payroll CAN pull itself out IF it commits to a long term vision, and creates waves of inhouse young talent and spends its FA dollars wisely. It happened for the Braves of the early 1990's because the team was good and young (people point to Ted's wallet but he really didn't open it wide until the team became successful and started drawing big - but he didn't need to either). Once there, smartly run teams can stay there a long time even without unlimited payrolls. Look at the Cardinals.

People point to aberrations like Kansas City and say "see it can be done." My position was that they were a good team that got extremely lucky AND got hot at the right time, a true long shot. And now they are heading for a rebuild (or should be). The Pirates are the same, except without the WS. Tampa. Oakland. Those teams use payroll as an excuse, which is a factor. But they also build for short term mediocrity with hopes of being competitive.

[Horsehide Harry]

I never said 2018... I said next year. Your scenario is assinine at this stage.

Your opinion. Small mind. Small worldview.

[zbhargrove]

Your opinion. Small mind. Small worldview.

Lol... you started off okay then went into typical HH tactics because I don't have your same opinion... which no other person in the world does

[zbhargrove]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're moving closer to my thinking but missing the totality which is that a 90 win team with limited resources has little chance to win anything of substance AND has little chance to pull itself into a different realm of resources. It reaches a high water mark then recedes quickly back because it doesn't have the resources to put itself over the top NOR keep itself close for long.

BUT, a small market club with limited payroll CAN pull itself out IF it commits to a long term vision, and creates waves of inhouse young talent and spends its FA dollars wisely. It happened for the Braves of the early 1990's because the team was good and young (people point to Ted's wallet but he really didn't open it wide until the team became successful and started drawing big - but he didn't need to either). Once there, smartly run teams can stay there a long time even without unlimited payrolls. Look at the Cardinals.

People point to aberrations like Kansas City and say "see it can be done." My position was that they were a good team that got extremely lucky AND got hot at the right time, a true long shot. And now they are heading for a rebuild (or should be). The Pirates are the same, except without the WS. Tampa. Oakland. Those teams use payroll as an excuse, which is a factor. But they also build for short term mediocrity with hopes of being competitive.

You do realize the early 90s teams had tons of holes with a few players that played out of their minds for like the only 2 or 3'yesrs of their careers, right? Rafael Belliard, Lemke, Blauser, Lonnie Smith, etc... even Pendleton... those guys sucked offensively except for one or two Chris Johnson type freak years.

[nsacpi]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You're moving closer to my thinking but missing the totality which is that a 90 win team with limited resources has little chance to win anything of substance AND has little chance to pull itself into a different realm of resources. It reaches a high water mark then recedes quickly back because it doesn't have the resources to put itself over the top NOR keep itself close for long.

BUT, a small market club with limited payroll CAN pull itself out IF it commits to a long term vision, and creates waves of inhouse young talent and spends its FA dollars wisely. It happened for the Braves of the early 1990's because the team was good and young (people point to Ted's wallet but he really didn't open it wide until the team became successful and started drawing big - but he didn't need to either). Once there, smartly run teams can stay there a long time even without unlimited payrolls. Look at the Cardinals.

People point to aberrations like Kansas City and say "see it can be done." My position was that they were a good team that got extremely lucky AND got hot at the right time, a true long shot. And now they are heading for a rebuild (or should be). The Pirates are the same, except without the WS. Tampa. Oakland. Those teams use payroll as an excuse, which is a factor. But they also build for short term mediocrity with hopes of being competitive.

You and I are actually similarly ambitious in terms of what we think a team with the Braves resources can accomplish. For me it is more about being ruthlessly efficient, which I think would allow the Braves to stay at 85-90 wins over a 10-year window. For you it is about aiming higher. But I think it is virtually impossible to reach what you are shooting for and stay there for anything more than 3 or 4 years. Neither of our approaches guarantees anything about winning a WS. It is not clear to me which approach maximizes the chances of a championship over a ten year period.

I do think my approach is more realistic in terms of what the club as a business feels it can ask for from an impatient fan base in a fickle market.

[Horsehide Harry]

Actually I don't think age is as relevant to the argument as you think. It is indirectly accounted for anyhow (through the aging curve) in any calculation of expected surplus value. Put another way, Albies and Acuna are going to depreciate more as assets to the club over the next two years than Freeman will. Young pre-arb players have the highest depreciation rate of any category of player. It seems paradoxical because they are still improving while older players are going downhill. The reason for it is that their production relative to cost is so high in those pre-arb years, and you never get that back as you burn through those years.

There's a difference in the whole. You don't trade Albies and Acuna because their abilities (and value) are ascending and should be through the early stages of a window of contention whereas Freeman's value is descending with his peak being before the window of contention. You can't trade either Acuna or Albies right now for the package that you would get back for Freeman because they are relative unknowns at this time with inexpensive promise being their best asset. Non contending teams would never trade you the equivalent of Tucker, Whitley and Celestino for Acuna OR Albies. But Houston might make that trade for Freeman because they are firmly in their window of opportunity and he well could lead them to another WS title. Sure, they likely would view the package as an overpay but Whitley is tarnished by the PED bust, Celestino is a long way away and they don't have a current opening for Tucker and have other alternatives. Freeman is known and known to the Astros may be more valuable to them.

[Horsehide Harry]

Lol... you started off okay then went into typical HH tactics because I don't have your same opinion... which no other person in the world does

That's an assinine (sic) response

[nsacpi]

There's a difference in the whole. You don't trade Albies and Acuna because their abilities (and value) are ascending and should be through the early stages of a window of contention whereas Freeman's value is descending with his peak being before the window of contention. You can't trade either Acuna or Albies right now for the package that you would get back for Freeman because they are relative unknowns at this time with inexpensive promise being their best asset. Non contending teams would never trade you the equivalent of Tucker, Whitley and Celestino for Acuna OR Albies. But Houston might make that trade for Freeman because they are firmly in their window of opportunity and he well could lead them to another WS title. Sure, they likely would view the package as an overpay but Whitley is tarnished by the PED bust, Celestino is a long way away and they don't have a current opening for Tucker and have other alternatives. Freeman is known and known to the Astros may be more valuable to them.

Yes but one of the big drivers of winning is "free production" from pre-arb players. The more of that you have the more you can concentrate your spending on the remaining holes on the team. Right now the Astros have so much free production they can bring in guys like Verlander and Cole and hypothetically Freeman. But that window snaps shut very fast. Especially if they empty out the farm for someone like Freeman. They didn't waste any of the free production that guys like Correa and Bregman are giving them. If you are right about the 2018 and 2019 outlooks, we would be wasting a lot of free production from Albies, Acuna, Gohara and others.

[Horsehide Harry]

You and I are actually similarly ambitious in terms of what we think a team with the Braves resources can accomplish. For me it is more about being ruthlessly efficient, which I think would allow the Braves to stay at 85-90 wins over a 10-year window. For you it is about aiming higher. But I think it is virtually impossible to reach what you are shooting for and stay there for anything more than 3 or 4 years. Neither of our approaches guarantees anything about winning a WS. It is not clear to me which approach maximizes the chances of a championship over a ten year period.

I do think my approach is more realistic in terms of what the club as a business feels it can ask for from an impatient fan base in a fickle market.

That's is certainly a consideration and may be true. However, I would say that winning, especially in the Braves market, is the best way to win and keep fans. Even then, if you don't win it all at some point, Braves fans will drift away just as happened during the "Dynasty." I think the Braves FO has the perfect opportunity to do something like this since they had the scandal offseason. They could arrive, say that the rebuild is going well but delayed longer than was stated by the previous regime (which can't be disputed) and ask for patience while they clean up the debris left behind and finish the rebuild.

The illusion of greatness only lasts so long in a market like Atlanta IMO. Sure, they can feed the masses the idea of competing for championships soon, but if they don't then they will be looking at a lot of empty seats quickly.

[Horsehide Harry]

Yes but one of the big drivers of winning is "free production" from pre-arb players. The more of that you have the more you can concentrate your spending on the remaining holes on the team. Right now the Astros have so much free production they can bring in guys like Verlander and Cole and hypothetically Freeman. But that window snaps shut very fast. Especially if they trade for someone like Freeman.

And that would be the case for the Braves of the future UNLESS they have established waves of talent where they could move expense and replace with new young talent. Houston could do the trade I proposed and STILL have a pretty significant farm to fall back on. Keep in mind that Houston, like Atlanta, is in a large market but historically has positioned its payroll as mid tier mostly - they finished 2017 with the 19th highest payroll according to COTS. They could (and Atlanta could) theoretically move their payroll into the top 10 or even 5 as they ride the wave of their run. Or they could rely on low cost influx from their farm. I think they will do a little of both. The Braves should follow Houston's example (hopefully learn from their mistakes) not Pittsburgh or Tampa's example.

[TheBravos]

The time has passed to trade Freeman, and I was one that was all for it. I don’t think you could ever get even equal value for what we would be giving up at this point....and if you trade Freeman...it better be a slam dunk win (like Vlad JR +).

[Carp]

Houston is not making that trade. They could just have easily signed Hosmer, Santana, or JD Martinez at similar rates and stuck them at 1b while giving up zero prospects.

[Horsehide Harry]

Houston is not making that trade. They could just have easily signed Hosmer, Santana, or JD Martinez at similar rates and stuck them at 1b while giving up zero prospects.

Maybe they don't. I said from the beginning that I don't trade Freeman unless I get the package back I want. However, Freeman is a better and more complete player than any of those players. Santana is old and headed for a crash. Martinez is one dimensional and not a 1B. Hosmer signed an expensive contract in terms of money and years and isn't half the player Freeman is - IMO, Hosmer is fool's gold. Houston went into ST with the idea that they would use Gurriel there (as they did last year) but he's a 3B by trade and hurt for at least 6 weeks.

Again, I wouldn't trade Freeman unless I got a package back that was significant (similar to what I laid out with Houston). But, I wouldn't let the fact that Freeman is Freeman deter me from taking advantage of a package like that if it was available and I wouldn't sit on the sidelines waiting for someone to come to me. I would pick up the phone and let a few targeted teams know what it would take if they wanted him as see where it goes. If it doesn't go anywhere, so be it.

[Southcack77]

Braves have pretty clearly made their choice on Freeman.

reversing that decision now would be so unpalatable politically and with Braves fans that I cannot see a GM being strong enough to make that call. I'm not sure he'd be allowed to if he wanted to. Braves are already getting hit with mildly bad press about their lack of movement this offseason. I can't imagine the storm that would come if they traded their best player. It would take a ton of balls and I don't think it would be a good career decision.

Other than that, anyone should be tradable for the right package, but I don't see Harry's proposed returns as particularly realistic for a 1B with only a decent contract.

I think the Braves now have 2018 to assess how close they are. If they find their young core and pitchers hit their stride, they have a ton of resources to use to try and improve that next offseason through trade and free salary space. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't just commit to that path. There is no guarantee that waves of prospects will continue a run. We're not likely to see the 90s Braves any time soon. Everybody tends to build and crash for a bit now. When other teams are managed efficiently that's almost inevitable.

I'd like to see them shoot for getting those wildcard spots and making moves to improve the team. And then try and acquire draft picks and prospects where they can by trading veterans and prospects alike from surplus.

[Knucksie]

Kind of remarkable that this has gone out to 3 pages without recommending to trade Inciarte too.

[bravesfanMatt]

I might go with HH trade FF propossal if I can be the one who f’ing chops Coppys right arm off.

[thethe]

Kind of remarkable that this has gone out to 3 pages without recommending to trade Inciarte too.

Depending on the advancement of Paches hit tool this year I would expect Inciarte to be floated around at the deadline as a potential trade piece.

[Southcack77]

Kind of remarkable that this has gone out to 3 pages without recommending to trade Inciarte too.


the logical extension is to trade everyone on a contract or within a couple of years of free agency. Or arguably arbitration as someone mentioned.

the premise is the Braves didn't get enough talent back in the rebuild to cut it. So if you think that is the case, you should be burning it down again.

[Horsehide Harry]

the logical extension is to trade everyone on a contract or within a couple of years of free agency. Or arguably arbitration as someone mentioned.

the premise is the Braves didn't get enough talent back in the rebuild to cut it. So if you think that is the case, you should be burning it down again.

To a certain extent this is part of my thinking.

The Braves DIDN'T get enough talent back (at least early) to make the rebuild successful. Think about it - early trade returns at the beginning of the rebuild have mostly busted our at least underwhelmed. The few successes really haven't been that great.

Folty has been meh. Even if he pulls it together, he's no longer that valuable because he's now more expensive AND approaching the end of his control.
Inciarte wasn't really a prospect (he was already established). But he's been a success. He's not really a true core player that you build a team around. But he's good.
Swanson, to this point has been a failure. Maybe he turns it around. But I don't think anyone sees him now as a future star.
Wisler and Blair have been failures.
Jenkins and Ellis were complete failures.
Newcomb may still work out but is still a huge question mark in his second year.
HO and the dwarves sent with him from LA was an explosive turd of a trade.
The 2014 Draft looks like a complete wasteland. Fortunately, the Braves did have some international luck with Acuna and Albies during that time or things would be really bleak. Yes, technically the 2014 draft was before the rebuild but it plays into where we are today.

The 2015 Draft is somewhat better (as it should be with 5 picks before the 3rd round) but not transcendently great. Allard looks marginal at this point. Soroka looks like a real find. Riley - who knows - he looks like a RH 1B to me who's short on true power for the position. Lucas is a bust so far - can't hit/couldn't when he was drafted. Minter is showing promise but is as fragile as he was when he was drafted. Weigel looked like a find until TJ.

The Braves have a very good farm currently based mainly on pitching. Unfortunately, most of that pitching is of the middle to back end of the rotation variety which makes it valuable but not hugely so. There doesn't appear to be much star power with the pitching unless one or more of the Wright/Soroka/Gohara trio come through. The offensive players look forced into their positions because of need (Riley) or are very far away. The bright spots (Albies & Acuna) likely would have been here even if the Braves had never begun a rebuild/reload. But they aren't enough by themselves.

If the Braves had another $40M of payroll space they could probably supplement their way to being competitive. But they don't. And they are short on position prospects of value to solidify the team moving forward.

As I've said before. They are headed for baseball purgatory: not bad enough so it's obvious that the rebuild failed and everyone agrees that it's back to the drawing board; not good enough to really win anything outside of an occasional WC and maybe a blind squirrel Divison.

[nsacpi]

To a certain extent this is part of my thinking.

The Braves DIDN'T get enough talent back (at least early) to make the rebuild successful. Think about it - early trade returns at the beginning of the rebuild have mostly busted our at least underwhelmed. The few successes really haven't been that great.

Folty has been meh. Even if he pulls it together, he's no longer that valuable because he's now more expensive AND approaching the end of his control.
Inciarte wasn't really a prospect (he was already established). But he's been a success. He's not really a true core player that you build a team around. But he's good.
Swanson, to this point has been a failure. Maybe he turns it around. But I don't think anyone sees him now as a future star.
Wisler and Blair have been failures.
Jenkins and Ellis were complete failures.
Newcomb may still work out but is still a huge question mark in his second year.
HO and the dwarves sent with him from LA was an explosive turd of a trade.
The 2014 Draft looks like a complete wasteland. Fortunately, the Braves did have some international luck with Acuna and Albies during that time or things would be really bleak. Yes, technically the 2014 draft was before the rebuild but it plays into where we are today.

The 2015 Draft is somewhat better (as it should be with 5 picks before the 3rd round) but not transcendently great. Allard looks marginal at this point. Soroka looks like a real find. Riley - who knows - he looks like a RH 1B to me who's short on true power for the position. Lucas is a bust so far - can't hit/couldn't when he was drafted. Minter is showing promise but is as fragile as he was when he was drafted. Weigel looked like a find until TJ.

The Braves have a very good farm currently based mainly on pitching. Unfortunately, most of that pitching is of the middle to back end of the rotation variety which makes it valuable but not hugely so. There doesn't appear to be much star power with the pitching unless one or more of the Wright/Soroka/Gohara trio come through. The offensive players look forced into their positions because of need (Riley) or are very far away. The bright spots (Albies & Acuna) likely would have been here even if the Braves had never begun a rebuild/reload. But they aren't enough by themselves.

If the Braves had another $40M of payroll space they could probably supplement their way to being competitive. But they don't. And they are short on position prospects of value to solidify the team moving forward.

As I've said before. They are headed for baseball purgatory: not bad enough so it's obvious that the rebuild failed and everyone agrees that it's back to the drawing board; not good enough to really win anything outside of an occasional WC and maybe a blind squirrel Divison.

Acuna & Albies have a chance to make up for a lot of those early fails.

There are always more fails than successes when it comes to prospects, even very highly touted ones.

I kind of have a rule of 6 (derived from a very fancy algorithm requiring a cutting edge microprocessor) about how many core players you need to have a good run of success. Our Core 6 as I see it are: Freeman, Inciarte, Acuna, Albies, Soroka, Gohara. I'm happy to take my chances with this group.

This team is going to be on a pretty steep upward trajectory through 2020-2021. What happens after that will largely depend on how we draft going forward and how smart we are when it comes to handing out contracts.

[Hudson2]

Middle to back end rotation prospects? Wright, Gohara, and Soroka are our top 3 pitching prospects and are not back end guys. The farm is in excellent shape and we have another top 10 pick coming in a few months.

[Horsehide Harry]

Acuna & Albies have a chance to make up for a lot of those early fails.

There are always more fails than successes when it comes to prospects, even very highly touted ones.

I kind of have a rule of 6 (derived from a very fancy algorithm requiring a cutting edge microprocessor) about how many core players you need to have a good run of success. Our Core 6 as I see it are: Freeman, Inciarte, Acuna, Albies, Soroka, Gohara. I'm happy to take my chances with this group.

This team is going to be on a pretty steep upward trajectory through 2020-2021. What happens after that will largely depend on how we draft going forward and how smart we are when it comes to handing out contracts.

Freeman and Inciarte I see. The other four (67%) are still prospects which means you are relying on prospects as the core of your team. That may be fine or may not.

I look at a core in a different way. I think you need a LO hitter (this should be a high OBP guy who plays a premium defensive position such as CF, SS or 2B). In your example I would say that Inciarte or Albies are superfluous to the other. I think you need a 3,4 and 5 hitter. You can call Freeman a 3 or 4, preferably a 4 since his speed is limited and will decline. Acuna might, maybe even should, be a 3 or 5. Let's say he is. And you need a #1 and #2 SP.

If you have that core, you have a good chance of building a team each year. Right now, the Braves have no one near a #1 or #2. They all are #3 quality or worse. Could that change? Sure, hopefully, maybe. I don't think it's going to be Teheran (declining and soon gone from control), Folty (headcase, getting expensive and soon gone from control) or Newk (too wild). So that pins the hopes on two of the 3 possibles in Gohara, Wright and Soroka.

As for the missing piece in the 3,4,5 equation I don't see that in the Braves system. You could put Albies or Inciarte there but they are mis-cast. Riley? I'm not a believer that he can be that good, especially not as a playable 3B - he's more likely to be a filler guy who is a 6,7 or 8 on a reasonably good team. So, unless Swanson can be the guy (which it doesn't appear that he can) the Braves are missing a core hitter and 2 core pitchers.

[Horsehide Harry]

Middle to back end rotation prospects? Wright, Gohara, and Soroka are our top 3 pitching prospects and are not back end guys. The farm is in excellent shape and we have another top 10 pick coming in a few months.

I try not to fall into the trap of thinking that since they are Braves prospects, they are better simply because I want them to be.

Wright and Soroka aren't in the top 10 RH pitching prospects in baseball right now. Is that an unbreakable gospel? Of course not. But it does show a snapshot of how they are considered.

Gohara is the 4th best LH. But Allard and Fried are 7 and 10 respectively and I don't think anyone believes that either of those two guys are destined for TOR responsibilities any time soon. Gohara at 4 isn't bad but he has huge questions.

Maybe one or more of those 3 CAN develop into better than a rotation #3. But they haven't done it yet and haven't shown overwhelming evidence of that potential.

[nsacpi]

Freeman and Inciarte I see. The other four (67%) are still prospects which means you are relying on prospects as the core of your team. That may be fine or may not.

I look at a core in a different way. I think you need a LO hitter (this should be a high OBP guy who plays a premium defensive position such as CF, SS or 2B). In your example I would say that Inciarte or Albies are superfluous to the other. I think you need a 3,4 and 5 hitter. You can call Freeman a 3 or 4, preferably a 4 since his speed is limited and will decline. Acuna might, maybe even should, be a 3 or 5. Let's say he is. And you need a #1 and #2 SP.

If you have that core, you have a good chance of building a team each year. Right now, the Braves have no one near a #1 or #2. They all are #3 quality or worse. Could that change? Sure, hopefully, maybe. I don't think it's going to be Teheran (declining and soon gone from control), Folty (headcase, getting expensive and soon gone from control) or Newk (too wild). So that pins the hopes on two of the 3 possibles in Gohara, Wright and Soroka.


Its not as if there is no room for failure. Wright is a pretty good possibility to step in if either Soroka or Gohara stumble.

I don't see Albies and Inciarte as being superfluous. The way teams look at their #2 hitter has evolved. Albies has a chance to develop some pop and be a perfect #2 hitter.

Nothing is guaranteed, but I think we are going to a lineup that for the 2019-2021 period will look mostly like this:

1. Inciarte
2. Albies
3. Freeman
4. Acuna
5. LF to be acquired
6. 3B to be acquired
7. Flowers (needs to be extented)
8. Swanson

Rotation will feature Soroka, Gohara, Wright as the core. Guys like Teheran, Folty and Newcomb might get traded as part of the packages that bring back a left fielder and third baseman.

Now for the more speculative part. How do you extent that competitive window. I think Pache projects as a replacement for Inciarte at some point. But probably not in the next three years. I'm hoping we can draft someone like Madrigal. He could potentially take over at third, short or the outfield. Maybe second if we move Albies to short.

So we have a chance to continue getting some very cheap production from guys like Pache and Madrigal beyond 2021. That's important for a mid-market team. And chances are we can develop a couple guys from Allard, Touki, Wilson, Anderson and Wentz to eventually handle the back end of the rotation. We don't need them to be stars. Just solid productive players at a very good price.

And as I've emphasized we need to draft very well once we start winning and have a lower draft position. To me that's going to be the real test of our organization. I'm not too impressed when a team with a high draft position and extra picks has a productive draft. I'm much more impressed by productive drafts on the part of teams who draft late.

[Horsehide Harry]

Its not as if there is no room for failure. Wright is a pretty good possibility to step in if either Soroka or Gohara stumble.

I don't see Albies and Inciarte as being superfluous. The way teams look at their #2 hitter has evolved. Albies has a chance to develop some pop and be a perfect #2 hitter.

Nothing is guaranteed, but I think we are going to a lineup that for the 2019-2021 period will look mostly like this:

1. Inciarte
2. Albies
3. Freeman
4. Acuna
5. LF to be acquired
6. 3B to be acquired
7. Flowers (needs to be extented)
8. Swanson

Rotation will feature Soroka, Gohara, Wright as the core. Guys like Teheran, Folty and Newcomb might get traded as part of the packages that bring back a left fielder and third baseman.

Now for the more speculative part. How do you extent that competitive window. I think Pache projects as a replacement for Inciarte at some point. But probably not in the next three years. I'm hoping we can draft someone like Madrigal. He could potentially take over at third, short or the outfield. Maybe second if we move Albies to short.

So we have a chance to continue getting some very cheap production from guys like Pache and Madrigal beyond 2021. That's important for a mid-market team. And chances are we can develop a couple guys from Allard, Touki, Wilson, Anderson and Wentz to eventually handle the back end of the rotation. We don't need them to be stars. Just solid productive players at a very good price.

And as I've emphasized we need to draft very well once we start winning and have a lower draft position. To me that's going to be the real test of our organization. I'm not too impressed when a team with a high draft position and extra picks has a productive draft. I'm much more impressed by productive drafts on the part of teams who draft late.

I think you and I are in pretty close agreement. I do feel that the poor returns of the early rebuild/reload and the loss of the 12 or so International prospects plus the #3 in this year's draft plus the inability to sign so called high end Internationals for a couple of years really limits any ability to have an extended window of competition. The poor early returns are putting the Braves in position to rush kids up and even if those kids are ready (Acuna, Albies) you lose the value of the guys who busted or near busted.

IF the Braves had a more robust payroll I might believe differently.

As for trading Freeman, as I said at the beginning, it would take a very specific return for me to pull the trigger. I admit that that return might not be there. But I wouldn't be afraid to do it.

[Enscheff]

Depending on the advancement of Paches hit tool this year I would expect Inciarte to be floated around at the deadline as a potential trade piece.

Yes, we will review the accuracy of your “Pache will make Ender expendable within the year” opinion when the time comes.

[Southcack77]

I try not to fall into the trap of thinking that since they are Braves prospects, they are better simply because I want them to be.

Wright and Soroka aren't in the top 10 RH pitching prospects in baseball right now. Is that an unbreakable gospel? Of course not. But it does show a snapshot of how they are considered.

Gohara is the 4th best LH. But Allard and Fried are 7 and 10 respectively and I don't think anyone believes that either of those two guys are destined for TOR responsibilities any time soon. Gohara at 4 isn't bad but he has huge questions.

Maybe one or more of those 3 CAN develop into better than a rotation #3. But they haven't done it yet and haven't shown overwhelming evidence of that potential.


We've been down this road before. I don't mind the thought experiment but you are pretty unfair to the Braves in deciding every break against them.

They have a lot of money to play with for free agents. They have a lot of prospect capital for use in trades. They have several more drafts to go before the existing prospect base runs out. You are basically projecting them to strike out in all of those areas and in fact to regress.

That could happen. Or just as possibly they could make good decisions and have good evaluations and trade players at the correct times rather than at the wrong times.

Even your Astros on a six year window could easily be said to be in the same place. There is too much unknown to really paint that picture with any certainty.

Personally, I think they have a credible core to at least explore. You have to give yourself a chance at some point.

[GeorgiaGirl]

The Braves definitely didn't maximize the rebuild as much as possible, but unless a lot of things go bad this year, you have to at least try at some point. If you have another season in which the young players don't make big contributions to winning/take steps forward, even with another likely non playoff team, you're likely in deep doodoo though.

Let's say this is a 75-78 win team. It'd be a successful season if Dansby showed something and you had your young studs that have had a great ST be a part of the top 4 players on the team, and you can build off of that. However, if you have the same season without the step forward from kids, you don't really have anything to build off of.

[Southcack77]

The Braves definitely didn't maximize the rebuild as much as possible, but unless a lot of things go bad this year, you have to at least try at some point. If you have another season in which the young players don't make big contributions to winning/take steps forward, even with another likely non playoff team, you're likely in deep doodoo though.

Let's say this is a 75-78 win team. It'd be a successful season if Dansby showed something and you had your young studs that have had a great ST be a part of the top 4 players on the team, and you can build off of that. However, if you have the same season without the step forward from kids, you don't really have anything to build off of.

I'm getting towards the point where I think the real question for Atlanta is going to be the pitching.

So, I think I would still feel really encouraged if they won 76 games but saw some encouraging things from Gohara, Newcomb, Soroka. Ultimately, if they don't have three or four homegrown rotation pieces that are better than fifth starters, they aren't going anywhere.

[Heyward]

Braves are pretty close to contention, so thats a no for me dawg.

[Horsehide Harry]

Braves are pretty close to contention, so thats a no for me dawg.

I maintain that there is a difference between being close to contention, marginally contending, and being a real player.

I think the Braves win about 75 games in 2018. Then probably go 82-85 in 2019 depending on internal development of pitchers and external signings to fill offensive holes. Then settle in at around 90 in 2020 and 2021. Then either lose Freeman and fall back a bit or re-sign Freeman (or someone to fill his WAR shoes) and stay at 90 or so for another year or two before running into the end of the control years of Swanson, Albies and Acuna.

During that time, they lose and replace a few salaries such as Markakis and Teheran but see the expense of the internal crop grow every year. Also, for the next couple of years or so, International talent would have to come from the low bonus variety, certainly possible but more risky. Also, if the record goes like I predict, they will start picking in the middle to back third of the draft, meaning you have to hope for an impact player or resign yourself to good complimentary players.

Now, if the payroll changes significantly and the Braves get to a. keep in house everyone they want to as they get more expensive and b. sign some real external talent that will fill holes, then the team might push up into real contender territory. Otherwise, its likely to be a tease followed by a let down in 4-5 years.

[Horsehide Harry]

We've been down this road before. I don't mind the thought experiment but you are pretty unfair to the Braves in deciding every break against them.

They have a lot of money to play with for free agents. They have a lot of prospect capital for use in trades. They have several more drafts to go before the existing prospect base runs out. You are basically projecting them to strike out in all of those areas and in fact to regress.

That could happen. Or just as possibly they could make good decisions and have good evaluations and trade players at the correct times rather than at the wrong times.

Even your Astros on a six year window could easily be said to be in the same place. There is too much unknown to really paint that picture with any certainty.

Personally, I think they have a credible core to at least explore. You have to give yourself a chance at some point.

Actually, I think I've been pretty fair.

I'm not projecting any of the pitchers to become annual Cy young candidates, but where have you seen any hint that we should? I've said that they mostly look like #3's. A couple have the potential to be better than that but they also have the potential to get hurt or bust completely. I have Acuna as an annual 4 WAR guy. Maybe he's better than that but he's done nothing at the ML level yet. I have Albies as an annual 4 WAR guy. Again maybe better (hopefully). I have Swanson as a 2 WAR guy. I may be a bit too optimistic on him. I also have Freeman slowly age declining. In the original post I had him as a 6/5/5/4 WAR guy for the rest of his current control with the Braves. Considering his career WAR profile (he's only surpassed 6 once and 4 twice, I don't see that as unreasonable.

I actually think Pache will be a good replacement for Inciarte in about 3 years and the Braves will get useful help from most of their high end pitchers.

But I'm not thethe for sure. He is Mister Brightside, all day, all the time. I think of myself as more Mr. Realistic. If I were Mr. Pessimistic, I would have Freeman missing a third of the season every other year and getting worse as he gets older. I would have Inciarte losing his range until he is a below average LF. I would have Swanson not surviving and Albies hitting a plateau with Acuna developing only into a so-so 3 WAR guy.

I DON'T like depending on luck for success as heavily as most seemed resigned to do.

[nsacpi]

Actually, I think I've been pretty fair.

I'm not projecting any of the pitchers to become annual Cy young candidates, but where have you seen any hint that we should? I've said that they mostly look like #3's. A couple have the potential to be better than that but they also have the potential to get hurt or bust completely. I have Acuna as an annual 4 WAR guy. Maybe he's better than that but he's done nothing at the ML level yet. I have Albies as an annual 4 WAR guy. Again maybe better (hopefully). I have Swanson as a 2 WAR guy. I may be a bit too optimistic on him. I also have Freeman slowly age declining. In the original post I had him as a 6/5/5/4 WAR guy for the rest of his current control with the Braves. Considering his career WAR profile (he's only surpassed 6 once and 4 twice, I don't see that as unreasonable.

I actually think Pache will be a good replacement for Inciarte in about 3 years and the Braves will get useful help from most of their high end pitchers.

But I'm not thethe for sure. He is Mister Brightside, all day, all the time. I think of myself as more Mr. Realistic. If I were Mr. Pessimistic, I would have Freeman missing a third of the season every other year and getting worse as he gets older. I would have Inciarte losing his range until he is a below average LF. I would have Swanson not surviving and Albies hitting a plateau with Acuna developing only into a so-so 3 WAR guy.

I'd say both Gohara and Soroka have given indications they could be more than mid-rotation types. Of course that doesn't make them perennial Cy Young candidates. But there is a broad range between mid-rotation and Cy Young candidates.

I think your Acuna and Albies projections are reasonable. Folks around here need to pump the brakes a little on those two.

[Horsehide Harry]

I'd say both Gohara and Soroka have given indications they could be more than mid-rotation types. Of course that doesn't make them perennial Cy Young candidates. But there is a broad range between mid-rotation and Cy Young candidates.

I agree. But I tried to account in my projections of them the possibility they will get hurt or never make it at all.

There's a non zero chance Gohara becomes a young Sabathia. Also a non zero chance Soroka becomes a Wainwright. But there's probably a bigger non zero chance that they get hurt and at least some chance they stall in their development and never progress further.

My point is if you have to rely on things going right a big enough percentage of the time, then disappointment will follow.