Kluber Paxton Greinke and Others

[nsacpi]

Corey Kluber has put up WAR of 5.1, 7.3 and 5.6 the past 3 seasons. Steamer projects him at 4.8 in 2019, which would be his age 33 season. He will make 13M in 2019 and there are options for 13.5M in 2020 and 14M in 2021. I really like options for pitchers because they provide some protection for teams in the event of catastrophic injury while allowing for upside in the event a pitcher ages well. It is difficult to know how to value this and my approach is to incorporate the value of those options by being slightly optimistic in my projections for his production over the next three years. I

I would project Kluber to total 14 WAR over the next three years. His salary over this time represents the market price for 4 wins. So surplus value of 10 WAR over this period. What might we offer the Indians with equivalent value. I would value Newcomb as a 2 WAR per year player during the remaining five years of team control. For the next two yeas most of that is surplus value and for the last three about half is expected surplus value. So total about 6 WAR of expected surplus value for Newk. The remaining 4 WAR could come from Touki or Bryse Wilson. We might have to give up Wright (and maybe even more) instead if the market for Kluber is strong, and I suspect it would be.

James Paxton has put up WAR of 3.5, 4.6, and 3.8 in the past 3 seasons. Steamer really likes him and projects him at 4.4 in 2019, which would be his age 30 season. He has two seasons of arb control left. I would project him for a total of 8 WAR over those two years. He will make 18-20M in those two seasons, or the market price for 2 wins. So surplus value equivalent to 6 WAR. Newk would come close to getting him. Again with a strong market, it might take a little more. Say Newk and Wentz.

Zach Greinke has put up WAR of 2.2, 5.1 and 3.5 the last 3 seasons. Steamer projects him at 3.3 in 2019, which would be is age 35 season. I would project him to put up 9 WAR over the remaining three years of his contract. He is scheduled to make 95.5M in those three years (some deferred) or the equivalent of about 10 WAR. Greinke's contract is under water or at best just at the water line. In other threads, I discussed a trade in which we would provide affordable young pitching to the Diamondbacks in exchange for Peralta and Lamb. I have made the point that this makes sense for the Diamondbacks because it would allow them to then move Greinke and a big chunk of his contract and free up payroll for possible signing Pollock or extenting Goldschmidt or doing any number of other things.

It occurs to me that we could offer the Diamondbacks an opportunity to do a really big deal that would include Peralta, Lamb and Greinke. Peralta has put up WAR of 1.8 and 3.8 the last two years (he was injured most of the 2015 season). Steamer projects him at 2.5 next year, when he will be 31 for most of the season. Lets say he will generate 5 WAR over his two remaining arb years. He will make 13-15M over that period or the market price of 1.5 WAR. So surplus value of 3.5. Lamb also has two arbitration years left and has an expected surplus value of about 1.5. So Peralta and Lamb have a total value of 5 WAR. Pretty close to what Sean Newcomb is worth. Now expand the trade to include Greinke. What we have to give up in addition will depend on how much salary we take on. If we agree to take on say 15M per year of salary for the next 3 years, we would have to give up a prospect such as Touki or Wilson.

[Chico]

I've thought about taking on Grienke's contract in an effort to get Peralta and Lamb as well. Looking at AA's trade history and the fact he does not care for free agency there's a good chance we take on a "bad contract" in order to gain surplus vlaue in another area.

You could even include one of Julio or Oday or even both to offset some of the Grienke salary.

It starts to sound like a fantasy trade, but it's what AA has done most of in the past.

[nsacpi]

I want to also look at Carrasco and Bauer. But first let me make a few points about what the Diamondbacks, Mariners and Indians are trying to do. They all face significant payroll constraints. They all seem reluctant to do a full teardown. What they are trying to do is remain relevant in 2019 while improving their chances or extending their windows beyond 2019. It might seem foolish to some around here that they are taking this approach, but my impression is this is what they are trying to do.

If I'm right about what these teams are trying to accomplish, it makes a lot of sense for them to trade for someone like Newcomb, who is cheap, has a bit of a major league track record and has five more years of control left. They give up someone who is better like Paxton, Bauer or Greinke, but who costs more and has fewer years of control. That is the tradeoff that those teams are trying to accomplish. And we are actually well positioned to help them do that.

A couple observations about Newcomb. There are quite a few posters around here (including me to some extent) who dream on him. I dream on him less than others, but I see the upside. GMs are more knowledgeable than we are, but they also dream on players to one extent or another. It could be that two of the three GMs for the Diamondbacks, Mariners and Indians will not be impressed at all with an offer centered around Newcomb. But one of them might be intrigued. AA needs to find that guy.

Second observation about Newcomb. He sweats like a pig and has trouble gripping the ball in hot humid weather. Some of his best starts came in air conditioned environments. I include San Francisco, which is naturally air conditioned. Teams look at everything these days. It might be a point of emphasis for the Diamondbacks or Mariners that Newcomb does really well in air conditioned environments.

[Chico]

I want to also look at Carrasco and Bauer. But first let me make a few points about what the Diamondbacks, Mariners and Indians are trying to do. They all face significant payroll constraints. They all seem reluctant to do a full teardown. What they are trying to do is remain relevant in 2019 which improving their chances or extending their windows beyond 2019. It might seem foolish to some, but that is the impression I have of what they are trying to do.

For all three teams, it makes a lot of sense to trade for someone like Newcomb, who is cheap but has a bit of a major league track record and has five more years of control left. They give up someone who is better like Paxton, Bauer or Greinke, but who costs more and has fewer years of control. That is the tradeoff that those teams are trying to accomplish. And we are actually well positioned to help them do that.

A couple more observations about Newcomb. There are quite a few posters around here (including me to some extent) who dream on him. I dream on him less than others, but I see the upside. GMs are more knowledgeable than we are, but they also dream on players to one extent or another. It could be that two of the three GMs for the Diamondbacks, Mariners and Indians will not be impressed at all with an offer centered around Newcomb. But one of them might be intrigued. AA needs to find that guy.

One more observation about Newcomb. He sweats like a pig and has trouble gripping the ball in hot humid weather. Some of his best starts came in air conditioned environments. I include San Francisco, which is naturally air conditioned. Teams look at everything these days. It might be a point of emphasis for a team like the Diamondbacks or Mariners that Newcomb does really well in air conditioned environments.

I like Newk, but I also like Touki. I think it's risky to have a planned rotation with both of them.

[nsacpi]

Carlos Carrasco has put up WAR of 2.5, 5.5 and 5.3 the last three seasons. Steamer has him at 4.6 in 2019, when he'll be 32. I would expect him to generate 8 WAR over the next two seasons. His 2019 salary is 9M and there is a club option for 9.5 in 2020. Expected surplus value about 6. Newcomb comes close to that. If the market for guys like Carasco is strong, maybe Newk plus Wentz.

Trevor Bauer has put up WAR of 2.7, 3.2 and 6.1 the last three seasons. Steamer has him at 4.0 in 2019, when he will be 28. I like him a little more but lets say 8 WAR over his remaining two years of arb control. He will probably make 20-22 M over those two year. So surplus value a little under 6. Again Newcomb or Newcomb plus a little more might get this done. Of the five pitchers I've looked at in this thread, Bauer is the one who interests me the most. But I suspect Cleveland would rather trade Carrasco, so he might be the most realistic target.

[BeanieAntics]

Corey Kluber has put up WAR of 5.1, 7.3 and 5.6 the past 3 seasons. Steamer projects him at 4.8 in 2019, which would be his age 33 season. He will make 13M in 2019 and there are options for 13.5M in 2020 and 14M in 2021. I really like options for pitchers because they provide some protection for teams in the event of catastrophic injury while allowing for upside in the event a pitcher ages well. It is difficult to know how to value this and my approach is to incorporate the value of those options by being slightly optimistic in my projections for his production over the next three years. I

I would project Kluber to total 14 WAR over the next three years. His salary over this time represents the market price for 4 wins. So surplus value of 10 WAR over this period. What might we offer the Indians with equivalent value. I would value Newcomb as a 2 WAR per year player during the remaining five years of team control. For the next two yeas most of that is surplus value and for the last three about half is expected surplus value. So total about 6 WAR of expected surplus value for Newk. The remaining 4 WAR could come from Touki or Bryse Wilson. We might have to give up Wright (and maybe even more) instead if the market for Kluber is strong, and I suspect it would be.

James Paxton has put up WAR of 3.5, 4.6, and 3.8 in the past 3 seasons. Steamer really likes him and projects him at 4.4 in 2019, which would be his age 30 season. He has two seasons of arb control left. I would project him for a total of 8 WAR over those two years. He will make 18-20M in those two seasons, or the market price for 2 wins. So surplus value equivalent to 6 WAR. Newk would come close to getting him. Again with a strong market, it might take a little more. Say Newk and Wentz.

Zach Greinke has put up WAR of 2.2, 5.1 and 3.5 the last 3 seasons. Steamer projects him at 3.3 in 2019, which would be is age 35 season. I would project him to put up 9 WAR over the remaining three years of his contract. He is scheduled to make 95.5M in those three years (some deferred) or the equivalent of about 10 WAR. Greinke's contract is under water or at best just at the water line. In other threads, I discussed a trade in which we would provide affordable young pitching to the Diamondbacks in exchange for Peralta and Lamb. I have made the point that this makes sense for the Diamondbacks because it would allow them to then move Greinke and a big chunk of his contract and free up payroll for possible signing Pollock or extenting Goldschmidt or doing any number of other things.

It occurs to me that we could offer the Diamondbacks an opportunity to do a really big deal that would include Peralta, Lamb and Greinke. Peralta has put up WAR of 1.8 and 3.8 the last two years (he was injured most of the 2015 season). Steamer projects him at 2.5 next year, when he will be 31 for most of the season. Lets say he will generate 5 WAR over his two remaining arb years. He will make 13-15M over that period or the market price of 1.5 WAR. So surplus value of 3.5. Lamb also has two arbitration years left and has an expected surplus value of about 1.5. So Peralta and Lamb have a total value of 5 WAR. Pretty close to what Sean Newcomb is worth. Now expand the trade to include Greinke. What we have to give up in addition will depend on how much salary we take on. If we agree to take on say 15M per year of salary for the next 3 years, we would have to give up a prospect such as Touki or Wilson.

Its interesting that so many 3rd party evaluators are so much lower than me on Touki. Right now I have him as a clear cut 55 value pitcher, but FG has him as a 50 just a couple dozen spots above Wilson who is also a 50. If I had a choice between the two, there is no doubt that I'd trade Wilson every day of the week before I even thought about touching Touki. I suspect that many FOs feel similarly and that Touki is going to be highly sought after in trade discussions.

[Southcack77]

Kluber's contract information is a little inconsistent between sites, but I think he's hit some escalators that make his base salary 17m. I think that's still a bargain, when you consider 12m is the going rate for a veteran fourth starter type. With the last two seasons being options with small buyouts, that's an intensely good contract.

I'm in the category of people that believe starting pitching is still important, so I am not against landing someone like Kluber. I assume the prospect cost would be tremendous, but I think I can live with parting with any pitching prospect.

I doubt Newcomb is going to be a sought after asset in trades.

......

The performance suggests otherwise, but i would personally value Greinke more towards that 3-4 veteran starter role, maybe a little higher. That's not a market reality, but if the Diamondbacks are willing to reduce his salary in that range and not demand a whole lot in return, I'm ok with it.

I am not so concerned with declining stuff as others and Greinke has excelled in figuring out how to live without the hard stuff, but he's still 35 and I'm not sure his stuff is necessary playoff shutout level. He's old enough to where even the aging gracefully crafty guys start to lose the ability to always hit their spots.

i would not be inclined to eat most of Greinke's salary to get Lamb and Peralta.

[BeanieAntics]

Carlos Carrasco has put up WAR of 2.5, 5.5 and 5.3 the last three seasons. Steamer has him at 4.6 in 2019, when he'll be 32. I would expect him to generate 8 WAR over the next two seasons. His 2019 salary is 9M and there is a club option for 9.5 in 2020. Expected surplus value about 6. Newcomb comes close to that. If the market for guys like Carasco is strong, maybe Newk plus Wentz.

Trevor Bauer has put up WAR of 2.7, 3.2 and 6.1 the last three seasons. Steamer has him at 4.0 in 2019, when he will be 28. I like him a little more but lets say 8 WAR over his remaining two years of arb control. He will probably make 20-22 M over those two year. So surplus value a little under 6. Again Newcomb or Newcomb plus a little more might get this done. Of the five pitchers I've looked at in this thread, Bauer is the one who interests me the most. But I suspect Cleveland would rather trade Carrasco, so he might be the most realistic target.

I really don't want to trade for a SP this offseason, but if we do I think a Bauer for Newk + (insert 45 FV prospect) would be okay with me. The Greinke idea also seems somewhat compelling, but paying him that much over the next 3 years (plus prospects) for 2 years of Peralta and Lamb isn't the most appealing idea in the world

[nsacpi]

Its interesting that so many 3rd party evaluators are so much lower than me on Touki. Right now I have him as a clear cut 55 value pitcher, but FG has him as a 50 just a couple dozen spots above Wilson who is also a 50. If I had a choice between the two, there is no doubt that I'd trade Wilson every day of the week before I even thought about touching Touki. I suspect that many FOs feel similarly and that Touki is going to be highly sought after in trade discussions.

I like both Touki and Wilson more than Wright. But not as much as Soroka and Gohara.

[BeanieAntics]

Kluber's contract information is a little inconsistent between sites, but I think he's hit some escalators that make his base salary 17m. I think that's still a bargain, when you consider 12m is the going rate for a veteran fourth starter type. With the last two seasons being options with small buyouts, that's an intensely good contract.

I'm in the category of people that believe starting pitching is still important, so I am not against landing someone like Kluber. I assume the prospect cost would be tremendous, but I think I can live with parting with any pitching prospect.

I doubt Newcomb is going to be a sought after asset in trades.

......

The performance suggests otherwise, but i would personally value Greinke more towards that 3-4 veteran starter role, maybe a little higher. That's not a market reality, but if the Diamondbacks are willing to reduce his salary in that range and not demand a whole lot in return, I'm ok with it.

I am not so concerned with declining stuff as others and Greinke has excelled in figuring out how to live without the hard stuff, but he's still 35 and I'm not sure his stuff is necessary playoff shutout level. He's old enough to where even the aging gracefully crafty guys start to lose the ability to always hit their spots.

i would not be inclined to eat most of Greinke's salary to get Lamb and Peralta.

The question isn't whether it is a good contract or not, the question is do we want to absorb that contract plus the prospect cost at a position where we currently have a surplus, while neglecting our other needs. If we absorb all of Kluber's contract, it would be exceedingly difficult to address corner outfield and catcher. The problem compounds on itself if you include Ender in the deal, as some have suggested.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that SP isn't important. The question is do we really need to add another SP and his contract when we have a surplus and we are coming off a year where our SPs had the 4th best combined ERA in baseball.

[BeanieAntics]

I like both Touki and Wilson more than Wright. But not as much as Soroka and Gohara.

Interesting. I'd definitely put Touki in the Soroka and Gohara group on my list, with Wright just under them and Wilson behind him. It'll be interesting to see how teams end up valuing those guys. Personally I think I'd rather give up prospects from the Anderson, Muller, Wentz group than I would the group that is close to the majors, but that is just me.

[Hudson2]

Anderson, Wright, and Touki for me in that order. Arizona would have to eat a lot of money to get me to take Greinke. If Cleveland is trying to save money to sign a FA outfielder then I would definitely see what one of their starters would cost but only after we fix C and COF.

[nsacpi]

Interesting. I'd definitely put Touki in the Soroka and Gohara group on my list, with Wright just under them and Wilson behind him. It'll be interesting to see how teams end up valuing those guys. Personally I think I'd rather give up prospects from the Anderson, Muller, Wentz group than I would the group that is close to the majors, but that is just me.

Anderson is more with Touki and Wilson for me. Roughly I group them like this:

Soroka and Gohara--do not trade

Anderson, Touki, Wilson

Wright

Wentz, Muller, Allard

I suspect some of the teams we discuss trades with will value Wright above Anderson, Touki and Wilson.

[Super]

Interesting. I'd definitely put Touki in the Soroka and Gohara group on my list, with Wright just under them and Wilson behind him. It'll be interesting to see how teams end up valuing those guys. Personally I think I'd rather give up prospects from the Anderson, Muller, Wentz group than I would the group that is close to the majors, but that is just me.

i think wilson's floor is pretty high. he's much more of a sure thing to produce than a guy like touki. that's gotta be baked in to evals.

[nsacpi]

Anderson, Wright, and Touki for me in that order. Arizona would have to eat a lot of money to get me to take Greinke. If Cleveland is trying to save money to sign a FA outfielder then I would definitely see what one of their starters would cost but only after we fix C and COF.

If I was AA would tell Cleveland I have in interest in Bauer or Carrasco. Let them choose which one to trade.

I would offer them a choice of two of Newcomb, Anderson, Wright, Touki, Wilson. I'm pretty sure they will take Newcomb as one of their choices.

The 2019 salaries for Bauer and Carrasco are not that high. 9M for Carrasco. Maybe a little more for Bauer. Picking up one of them would still leave us with enough to fill our other needs. We just might have to be a little cheaper in terms of who we bring in for the pen and bench.

[Southcack77]

The question isn't whether it is a good contract or not, the question is do we want to absorb that contract plus the prospect cost at a position where we currently have a surplus, while neglecting our other needs. If we absorb all of Kluber's contract, it would be exceedingly difficult to address corner outfield and catcher. The problem compounds on itself if you include Ender in the deal, as some have suggested.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that SP isn't important. The question is do we really need to add another SP and his contract when we have a surplus and we are coming off a year where our SPs had the 4th best combined ERA in baseball.


I don't see allocating 17m to a Cy Young level starting pitcher as particularly problematic to the payroll.

Catcher can be expensive, but it doesn't have to. They can simply bring back Suzuki one more time if they like and survey the trade market later.

cOF options are mostly the aging veterans who haven't been doing so well in free agency. This can get done for 15m. Or by trade.

So maybe 35m with Kluber, cOF, catcher.

Plenty of cash left to add to pen and the bench.


Personally, I'm open to trading Inciarte in any deal that values him highly. That would free up a little bit more money and bring down prospect cost. If you aren't getting value then keep him. He's still an asset at 6m.

[nsacpi]

The question isn't whether it is a good contract or not, the question is do we want to absorb that contract plus the prospect cost at a position where we currently have a surplus, while neglecting our other needs. If we absorb all of Kluber's contract, it would be exceedingly difficult to address corner outfield and catcher. The problem compounds on itself if you include Ender in the deal, as some have suggested.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that SP isn't important. The question is do we really need to add another SP and his contract when we have a surplus and we are coming off a year where our SPs had the 4th best combined ERA in baseball.

I agree that SP is not a priority this off-season. But I see an alignment between what some of these other teams are trying to do and what we can provide them. It is a case of being opportunistic and seeing if we can exploit that alignment. In a lot of the plans I suggested in other threads I have us bringing back Anibal. If we can get one of the pitchers I discuss in this thread for a reasonable price (centered around Newcomb) we really should go for it.

[Southcack77]

I agree that SP is not a priority this off-season. But I see an alignment between what some of these other teams are trying to do and what we can provide them. It is a case of being opportunistic and seeing if we can exploit that alignment. In a lot of the plans I suggested in other threads I have us bringing back Anibal. If we can get one of the pitchers I discuss in this thread for a reasonable price (centered around Newcomb) we really should go for it.


Bringing Anibal back as a 6th man is just fine, but he's the $39 DVD Player you pick up to get a year's use out of before it breaks.

Asking him to do what he did this year is asking for disappointment. You certainly shouldn't pay more than $39.

[BeanieAntics]

I don't see allocating 17m to a Cy Young level starting pitcher as particularly problematic to the payroll.

Catcher can be expensive, but it doesn't have to. They can simply bring back Suzuki one more time if they like and survey the trade market later.

cOF options are mostly the aging veterans who haven't been doing so well in free agency. This can get done for 15m. Or by trade.

So maybe 35m with Kluber, cOF, catcher.

Plenty of cash left to add to pen and the bench.


Personally, I'm open to trading Inciarte in any deal that values him highly. That would free up a little bit more money and bring down prospect cost. If you aren't getting value then keep him. He's still an asset at 6m.

I'd personally much rather improve catcher than trade a boat load of prospects for a 33 year old pitcher. His contract isn't bad for his level of production, but 15-17 million dollars is still 15-17 million dollars. If we had a glaring need at starting pitcher I'd have no problem with swinging a deal for Kluber. But we really don't. We do have a need at catcher and corner outfield. We could go the cheap route and just resign Suzuki or something, but I'd rather have Grandal. Then swing a trade for Peralta or something.

I'd like a lineup with Grandal + Peralta FAR more than I'd like a lineup with Flowers/Suzuki plus somebody like Brantley. That would only be marginally better than last year's lineup, maybe no improvement at all if Flowers and Suzuki continue to regress.

Like I said, if we had a glaring need or if it were for a slam dunk type of player, then I'd consider doing it. But I'd never consider a 33 year old pitcher a slam dunk kind of acquisition, especially when you're talking about ~100 million in surplus value to acquire him.

[nsacpi]

Bringing Anibal back as a 6th man is just fine, but he's the $39 DVD Player you pick up to get a year's use out of before it breaks.

Asking him to do what he did this year is asking for disappointment. You certainly shouldn't pay more than $39.

Actually Anibal's data on balls squared up was very good this year. He figured out something with the cutter last off-season. But if we can get one of the guys we are talking about in this tread for a reasonable price we should go for it. Anibal would be my fall-back plan if we didn't.

[nsacpi]

I'd personally much rather improve catcher than trade a boat load of prospects for a 33 year old pitcher. His contract isn't bad for his level of production, but 15-17 million dollars is still 15-17 million dollars. If we had a glaring need at starting pitcher I'd have no problem with swinging a deal for Kluber. But we really don't. We do have a need at catcher and corner outfield. We could go the cheap route and just resign Suzuki or something, but I'd rather have Grandal. Then swing a trade for Peralta or something.

I'd like a lineup with Grandal + Peralta FAR more than I'd like a lineup with Flowers/Suzuki plus somebody like Brantley. That would only be marginally better than last year's lineup, maybe no improvement at all if Flowers and Suzuki continue to regress.

Like I said, if we had a glaring need or if it were for a slam dunk type of player, then I'd consider doing it. But I'd never consider a 33 year old pitcher a slam dunk kind of acquisition, especially when you're talking about ~100 million in surplus value to acquire him.

Carrasco, Bauer and Paxton look to be better fits for us in terms of risk-return.

[Southcack77]

I'd personally much rather improve catcher than trade a boat load of prospects for a 33 year old pitcher. His contract isn't bad for his level of production, but 15-17 million dollars is still 15-17 million dollars. If we had a glaring need at starting pitcher I'd have no problem with swinging a deal for Kluber. But we really don't. We do have a need at catcher and corner outfield. We could go the cheap route and just resign Suzuki or something, but I'd rather have Grandal. Then swing a trade for Peralta or something.

I'd like a lineup with Grandal + Peralta FAR more than I'd like a lineup with Flowers/Suzuki plus somebody like Brantley. That would only be marginally better than last year's lineup, maybe no improvement at all if Flowers and Suzuki continue to regress.

Like I said, if we had a glaring need or if it were for a slam dunk type of player, then I'd consider doing it. But I'd never consider a 33 year old pitcher a slam dunk kind of acquisition, especially when you're talking about ~100 million in surplus value to acquire him.


I think the Braves rotation does not match up that great with the biggest contenders. I consider that to be a hole.

It might not be a particularly urgent hole to fill. And maybe the Braves should not worry so much about winning championships right now and just see what they have internally.

But I consider Kluber to be the perfect filler for a contender looking to acquire a TOR piece and I don't worry about him being 33. I consider the risk of him falling apart to be a lot less than the risk of prospects never amounting to much of anything.

Which doesn't mean I think they should give away the whole farm to get him. Cost is always the issue. But I think he's a good fit for a need and I don't find his contract to be that off-putting.

[Southcack77]

Actually Anibal's data on balls squared up was very good this year. He figured out something with the cutter last off-season. But if we can get one of the guys we are talking about in this tread for a reasonable price we should go for it. Anibal would be my fall-back plan if we didn't.


There is no reason for the Braves to have Anibal and Teheran both in the rotation. Pick one.

I'd prefer Anibal, but depending on either one of them to repeat last season is foolish in my view.

[Enscheff]

One thing that’s clear about AA is he has those huge trades in his DNA. We’ve heard enough “frontline pitcher” chatter that it has to be considered a legit possibility.

[BeanieAntics]

One thing that’s clear about AA is he has those huge trades in his DNA. We’ve heard enough “frontline pitcher” chatter that it has to be considered a legit possibility.

Ugh.

[nsacpi]

One thing that’s clear about AA is he has those huge trades in his DNA. We’ve heard enough “frontline pitcher” chatter that it has to be considered a legit possibility.
the other thing we saw with the Kemp trade last off-season is that he is opportunistic in looking for ways in which what another franchise is looking for aligns with what the Braves can provide...there has to be that intersection of interests to get to a win-win deal

sometimes that intersection of interests is a lot deeper than one team needing an outfielder and another team needing a catcher

[BeanieAntics]

I think the Braves rotation does not match up that great with the biggest contenders. I consider that to be a hole.

It might not be a particularly urgent hole to fill. And maybe the Braves should not worry so much about winning championships right now and just see what they have internally.

But I consider Kluber to be the perfect filler for a contender looking to acquire a TOR piece and I don't worry about him being 33. I consider the risk of him falling apart to be a lot less than the risk of prospects never amounting to much of anything.

Which doesn't mean I think they should give away the whole farm to get him. Cost is always the issue. But I think he's a good fit for a need and I don't find his contract to be that off-putting.

Huh. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what we consider a "hole"... I wouldn't consider bringing back a plethora of young SP options that contributed to a top 5 ERA a hole. I understand the perception that we don't have an "ace" type of guy, but this rotation is really good overall and it should get better next year. I think the odds of Kluber keeping up what he is doing is better than the odds of a single prospect/young pitcher being good or great. But when you start talking about multiple prospects, I'm not so sure. Touki, Soroka, Wright, Wilson, Gohara, Newcomb, Allard and after them Anderson, Wentz, Muller, etc... If you picked one of those guys out of a hat, then yeah the odds aren't that good. But out of all those guys? I'm betting that we'll get enough to fill out a really good rotation with Gausman and Folty locked in to two spots.

I think a lot of this comes down to overall team perception. If I thought we could spend our way to a 25%+ chance of winning a WS next year, then maybe Kluber makes some sense. I don't think we can though. I think this team, with some responsible additions, is probably good enough to win 90-95 games next year and just be a normal playoff team with a ~10% chance at winning it all. If we get to the point where we look WS ready mid-season, fine... make a deal for Kluber or someone along those lines. But not until we know that our team is ready.

[Southcack77]

Huh. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what we consider a "hole"... I wouldn't consider bringing back a plethora of young SP options that contributed to a top 5 ERA a hole. I understand the perception that we don't have an "ace" type of guy, but this rotation is really good overall and it should get better next year. I think the odds of Kluber keeping up what he is doing is better than the odds of a single prospect/young pitcher being good or great. But when you start talking about multiple prospects, I'm not so sure. Touki, Soroka, Wright, Wilson, Gohara, Newcomb, Allard and after them Anderson, Wentz, Muller, etc... If you picked one of those guys out of a hat, then yeah the odds aren't that good. But out of all those guys? I'm betting that we'll get enough to fill out a really good rotation with Gausman and Folty locked in to two spots.

I think a lot of this comes down to overall team perception. If I thought we could spend our way to a 25%+ chance of winning a WS next year, then maybe Kluber makes some sense. I don't think we can though. I think this team, with some responsible additions, is probably good enough to win 90-95 games next year and just be a normal playoff team with a ~10% chance at winning it all. If we get to the point where we look WS ready mid-season, fine... make a deal for Kluber or someone along those lines. But not until we know that our team is ready.

I think it is more likely that Kluber is a Cy Young winner in any of the next three years than it is that any of the top three pitching prospects in the system, your choice, ever win one.

[Enscheff]

I think it is more likely that Kluber is a Cy Young winner in any of the next three years than it is that any of the top three pitching prospects in the system, your choice, ever win one.

Fair assessment.

It might mean something if the goal of an MLB team was to have a single CYA in a 3 year stretch. Ask the Mets.

[Southcack77]

Fair assessment.

It might mean something if the goal of an MLB team was to have a single CYA in a 3 year stretch. Ask the Mets.


I agree with this too.

Just saying, I'm not really buying the Kluber is too old to bet on.

[Enscheff]

The Dodgers philosophy appears to be managing the workloads of brittle pitchers during the marathon of the regular season to make sure they have difference makers ready for the sprint of the post season. That allows them to avoid paying the premium for pitcher durability.

If AA follows that methodology, Paxton seems like the most likely target. He’s a real difference maker that doesn’t carry the “workhorse” premium.

[BeanieAntics]

I agree with this too.

Just saying, I'm not really buying the Kluber is too old to bet on.

He might be different than your average pitcher and pitch effectively well into his late 30s. But given starting pitcher aging curves, I'd only be willing to bet on it at a reasonable price point. 100 million in surplus value and 17 million in $$$ is not what I would call a bargain rate.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-starters-and-relievers/

Notice how velo starts to fall apart right around Kluber's age and how everything else starts to go with it. If you don't see that as a considerable risk then I don't know what to tell you.

[Southcack77]

He might be different than your average pitcher and pitch effectively well into his late 30s. But given starting pitcher aging curves, I'd only be willing to bet on it at a reasonable price point. 100 million in surplus value and 17 million in $$$ is not what I would call a bargain rate.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-starters-and-relievers/

Notice how velo starts to fall apart right around Kluber's age and how everything else starts to go with it. If you don't see that as a considerable risk then I don't know what to tell you.

Kluber generally has lived off his cutter, sinker and slider, and significantly moved away from use of his four seamer last season, which has never been his most effective pitch. I don't see any major signs of decline in the effectiveness of those pitchers (well maybe the change), which tend to age better than fastball dependent on raw velocity.

injury and decline risk inevitably increases with age, but I wouldn't be especially worried about Kluber switching to the weaker offensive league and under-performing.

I'm more interested in who they would have to give up than their theoretical value. Kluber has that surplus value because he's expected to be very good. I don't mind trading in future value for present value where it is warranted and makes sense.

It might not make sense for Atlanta right now and you certainly would not want to acquire Kluber if you didn't do other things to maximize your chances of winning a title.

It might not be the right time to do any of this. Maybe championships are not what Atlanta needs to be worrying about. But when you put Kluber in front of Folty and Gausman all of a sudden your rotation starts to look about right for a series matchup.

[BeanieAntics]

Kluber generally has lived off his cutter, sinker and slider, and significantly moved away from use of his four seamer last season, which has never been his most effective pitch. I don't see any major signs of decline in the effectiveness of those pitchers (well maybe the change), which tend to age better than fastball dependent on raw velocity.

injury and decline risk inevitably increases with age, but I wouldn't be especially worried about Kluber switching to the weaker offensive league and under-performing.

I'm more interested in who they would have to give up than their theoretical value. Kluber has that surplus value because he's expected to be very good. I don't mind trading in future value for present value where it is warranted and makes sense.

It might not make sense for Atlanta right now and you certainly would not want to acquire Kluber if you didn't do other things to maximize your chances of winning a title.

It might not be the right time to do any of this. Maybe championships are not what Atlanta needs to be worrying about. But when you put Kluber in front of Folty and Gausman all of a sudden your rotation starts to look about right for a series matchup.

My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.

[nsacpi]

My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.

In the opening post the underlying assumption for Kluber was 5.5, 4.5 and 4.0 in the next three seasons. And as I noted I was a tad generous to incorporate the value of having those two options.

[Tapate50]

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers.

What do you mean "you people"?

[Southcack77]

My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.


Pretty certain that all of the projection systems have some element of forecasting decline.

For "those pitchers" read "those pitches". Typo.

I'm not arguing that age doesn't imply decline. I'm arguing against the implied assertion that Kluber has to be a "unicorn" to continue being a Cy Young caliber pitcher at 33, 34, or 35.

Nonetheless, I would not make the trade on the assumption he will be a 5+ Win pitcher in each of those years.

[nsacpi]

What do you mean "you people"?

I believe he might be referring to those of us not of predominantly northern European ancestry.

[Hudson2]

Kluber would be a luxury imo. Right now we have a full rotation until some are traded. Fried and Touki deserve their shot to see what they have. If we can get a legit COF and fix catcher then we can work on the rotation but it’s not a priority imo.

[BeanieAntics]

I believe he might be referring to those of us not of predominantly northern European ancestry.

Wir mussen die nsacpi ausrotten!!

[nsacpi]

Wir mussen die nsacpi ausrotten!!

Vater, vergib ihnen, dass sie nicht wissen, was sie tun

[BeanieAntics]

Vater, vergib ihnen, dass sie nicht wissen, was sie tun

Vergib mir, denn ich weiß nicht, was ich tue

[Heyward]

Pass on Greinke and Paxton.

Yes on Carrasco or Kluber. Both on good contracts, have good K/BB numbers, and are fairly durable.

Not sure what it would cost, but if the Braves went after a SP, those would be who i go after.

[nsacpi]

Pass on Greinke and Paxton.

Yes on Carrasco or Kluber. Both on good contracts, have good K/BB numbers, and are fairly durable.

Not sure what it would cost, but if the Braves went after a SP, those would be who i go after.

don't forget Bauer...solid germanic name

[Heyward]

Kluber would be a luxury imo. Right now we have a full rotation until some are traded. Fried and Touki deserve their shot to see what they have. If we can get a legit COF and fix catcher then we can work on the rotation but it’s not a priority imo.

We need another top end starter. Folty is good but you need more than 1 good SP.

Dodgers, Cubs have elite rotations, and the Nats will have Stras/Scherzer, and will probably sign one this winter. It's a need.

[Heyward]

don't forget Bauer...solid germanic name

Doubt he's available, why i didnt list him.

[Hudson2]

We need another top end starter. Folty is good but you need more than 1 good SP.

Dodgers, Cubs have elite rotations, and the Nats will have Stras/Scherzer, and will probably sign one this winter. It's a need.

I didn’t say I don’t want them to bc I’d love to have Kluber, but we need to upgrade C and COF first and then see what we have left over.

[Heyward]

I didn’t say I don’t want them to bc I’d love to have Kluber, but we need to upgrade C and COF first and then see what we have left over.

We agree here, starting C/corner OF'er biggest needs then go from there.

[Enscheff]

We need another top end starter. Folty is good but you need more than 1 good SP.

Dodgers, Cubs have elite rotations, and the Nats will have Stras/Scherzer, and will probably sign one this winter. It's a need.

I think you may want to review which teams have the elite rotations, and whether those teams went farther than the Braves.

This “must have top end starter” narrative simply isn’t backed up by facts.

[NinersSBChamps]

I think you may want to review which teams have the elite rotations, and whether those teams went farther than the Braves.

This “must have top end starter” narrative simply isn’t backed up by facts.

Sale is a bonafide ace and his team did okay. Kershaw is still a top end starter between April and parts of October. LA did slightly worse than Boston. Houston and Justin Verlander is a top end pitcher and they did decent last season and performed well this time around.

Washington is a dumpster fire. Chicago ran into a very hot Milwaukee team who coincidentally do not have have a top end starter. Cleveland has a top of the line starter or two. The Yankees relied on offense this season and probably could use an upgrade in the rotation.

Of the playoff teams the Braves, Rockies, Yankees, Brewers, and Athletics don’t have that guy in the rotation. Red Sox, Dodgers, Astros, Indians, and Cubs have a legit number 1 on their staff. So half the teams had a great pitcher and half didn’t.

[Southcack77]

I think you may want to review which teams have the elite rotations, and whether those teams went farther than the Braves.

This “must have top end starter” narrative simply isn’t backed up by facts.

Let’s start with the red sox and dodgers.

[Carp]

I think you may want to review which teams have the elite rotations, and whether those teams went farther than the Braves.

This “must have top end starter” narrative simply isn’t backed up by facts.

To be fair, the teams with elite rotations were almost entirely in the AL this season, aside from the Dodgers. AL was stacked this year. I guess may be you could consider the Mets, but the rest of the Mets team was turrible.

[Heyward]

I think you may want to review which teams have the elite rotations, and whether those teams went farther than the Braves.

This “must have top end starter” narrative simply isn’t backed up by facts.

Dodgers had an elite rotation: Ryu, Kershaw, Hill, Buehler.

Astros had Verlander, Cole, Keuchel, Morton. Indians had Kluber, Carrasco, Clevinger, Bauer. Sox had Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi. Yankees had Sevy, Happ, Tanaka, CC.

Brewers, Braves, A's, Rockies all had ? rotations, Cubs had a great rotation but were gassed. So as Niners said, half the field had good rotations, half did not. Or 6 to 4. Having a good rotation certainly matters.

[Enscheff]

Let’s start with the red sox and dodgers.

Cool, then look at the Mets and Brewers. I’ll wait.

[Enscheff]

Dodgers had an elite rotation: Ryu, Kershaw, Hill, Buehler.

Astros had Verlander, Cole, Keuchel, Morton. Indians had Kluber, Carrasco, Clevinger, Bauer. Sox had Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi. Yankees had Sevy, Happ, Tanaka, CC.

Brewers, Braves, A's, Rockies all had ? rotations, Cubs had a great rotation but were gassed. So as Niners said, half the field had good rotations, half did not. Or 6 to 4. Having a good rotation certainly matters.

What about the Mets? Did that elite rotation get them anywhere? Cubs rotation was mediocre all year. The Brewers went far with a crap rotation and excellent pitcher deployment strategy.

Seems to me a team needs good players, and those good players don’t have to be elite starting pitchers.

Again, the “we need a frontline starter” simply isn’t supported by facts. It’s just a tired old cliche from the 90s.

[thewupk]

Dodgers had an elite rotation: Ryu, Kershaw, Hill, Buehler.

Astros had Verlander, Cole, Keuchel, Morton. Indians had Kluber, Carrasco, Clevinger, Bauer. Sox had Sale, Price, Porcello, Eovaldi. Yankees had Sevy, Happ, Tanaka, CC.

Brewers, Braves, A's, Rockies all had ? rotations, Cubs had a great rotation but were gassed. So as Niners said, half the field had good rotations, half did not. Or 6 to 4. Having a good rotation certainly matters.

Only 2 of the top 7 rotations (Dodgers and Rockies) in the NL in fWAR made the playoffs in 2018.

It takes having a good a team to make the playoffs and that can be had in multiple ways. Having a great rotation is certainly part of that but by no means a requirement.

That said pitching for the Braves needs to improve in 2019 whether that's done internally or externally. I expect a combo of both.

[Carp]

Cool, then look at the Mets and Brewers. I’ll wait.

I would hardly call the Brewers an elite rotation.

[Chico]

Mariners fan site had them reluctantly accepting Wright/Riley/Weigel for Paxton. I think that’s what some fans are scared of when discussing acquiring a pitcher. Obviously that would never happen.

[bravesfanMatt]

I would hardly call the Brewers an elite rotation.

That is what he was saying.

[bravesfanMatt]

Braves strategy of TOR pitchers worked well in the 90’s. We had three and mustered only one title. The depth of our arms is greater than any other team. We can deploy guys like no other team. Utilize platoon splits. All while developing young pitchers who might actually be really good. No need to trade three pitchers for another teams castoff. Even if he projects to be good.

Just use the guys we have. 12 man staff with AAA options really making it 14 to 15 man staff.

[Heyward]

Mariners fan site had them reluctantly accepting Wright/Riley/Weigel for Paxton. I think that’s what some fans are scared of when discussing acquiring a pitcher. Obviously that would never happen.

I'd do that for Kluber, not Paxton.

[Heyward]

Braves strategy of TOR pitchers worked well in the 90’s. We had three and mustered only one title. The depth of our arms is greater than any other team. We can deploy guys like no other team. Utilize platoon splits. All while developing young pitchers who might actually be really good. No need to trade three pitchers for another teams castoff. Even if he projects to be good.

Just use the guys we have. 12 man staff with AAA options really making it 14 to 15 man staff.

Some pitchers wont pan out, some will get hurt, some will turn out good. But Braves window isnt gonna be open forever. Gotta make big moves if the team wants to do big things. Cant be afraid to make trades.

[bravesfanMatt]

Some pitchers wont pan out, some will get hurt, some will turn out good. But Braves window isnt gonna be open forever. Gotta make big moves if the team wants to do big things. Cant be afraid to make trades.

I am fine with trading guys. Just want impact bats. Not more pitching.

[Southcack77]

Braves strategy of TOR pitchers worked well in the 90’s. We had three and mustered only one title. The depth of our arms is greater than any other team. We can deploy guys like no other team. Utilize platoon splits. All while developing young pitchers who might actually be really good. No need to trade three pitchers for another teams castoff. Even if he projects to be good.

Just use the guys we have. 12 man staff with AAA options really making it 14 to 15 man staff.

you can only have so many guys in the bullpen. And there are only so many ways of managing splits and matchups. There is a limit to the efficiency to holding on to all of these guys. And the best use of a player with starting stuff isn't to convert him into a specialist.

[UNCBlue012]

I am fine with trading guys. Just want impact bats. Not more pitching.

It depends on the pitcher for me. Kluber would be as beneficial as an impact bat because of the need for a legit TOR pitcher. Paxton, I like a lot, but I likely wouldn't give what it'd take to acquire him.

[Southcack77]

I'd do that for Kluber, not Paxton.

Overpay for Paxton, maybe an underpay for Kluber. I agree.

[Southcack77]

What about the Mets? Did that elite rotation get them anywhere? Cubs rotation was mediocre all year. The Brewers went far with a crap rotation and excellent pitcher deployment strategy.

Seems to me a team needs good players, and those good players don’t have to be elite starting pitchers.

Again, the “we need a frontline starter” simply isn’t supported by facts. It’s just a tired old cliche from the 90s.


The elite rotation got them into the World Series in 2015.

It was banged up this year, but I would attribute their failures this season more to injuries to Cespedes, Jay Bruce, Todd frazier and their general failure to produce offense.

[clvclv]

Some pitchers wont pan out, some will get hurt, some will turn out good. But Braves window isnt gonna be open forever. Gotta make big moves if the team wants to do big things. Cant be afraid to make trades.

All the more reason to have 15 of them ready to make a start at any given point. The Gnats had TWO Aces at the top of their rotation and absolutely folded when they weren't starting. Philly had Nola, Kluber, and not much. These guys aren't Wisler and Sims who stand little chance of keeping you in a game. Fill the holes, improve the bench, and do something to fix what was a God-awful pen.

"Spahn and Sain And Pray For Rain" couldn't be more appropriate for some teams. This organization has more high-end talent than any other one in baseball - deploy it right, quit walking so *amn many hitters, and go win games.

[Enscheff]

I would hardly call the Brewers an elite rotation.

Yeah..that's the point. They gave the Dodgers all they could handle with a terrible rotation. Maybe someone needs to go tell them how much they needed a "frontline starter"?

[Enscheff]

The elite rotation got them into the World Series in 2015.

It was banged up this year, but I would attribute their failures this season more to injuries to Cespedes, Jay Bruce, Todd frazier and their general failure to produce offense.

So what you're saying is a team needs many good players...

Again, the Braves do not need to go out and get a "frontline starter" as some sort of prerequisite for post season success. That tired old cliche needs to stay in the 90s.

If the M's love Newk and are willing to give up Paxton for Newk plus Allard...then yes, get the "frontline starter". If it requires some market rate exchange of prospect value I would prefer the Braves focus on position players first because there are already many young talented options to take the mound.

[nsacpi]

So what you're saying is a team needs many good players...

Again, the Braves do not need to go out and get a "frontline starter" as some sort of prerequisite for post season success. That tired old cliche needs to stay in the 90s.

If the M's love Newk and are willing to give up Paxton for Newk plus Allard...then yes, get the "frontline starter". If it requires some market rate exchange of prospect value I would prefer the Braves focus on position players first because there are already many young talented options to take the mound.

Agreed. I started this thread because I saw a potential opportunity based on what Seattle, Arizona and Cleveland were trying to accomplish. It is possible that a player like Newcomb will check off some boxes for the GM for one of those teams and allow us to upgrade the starting rotation. If not, we have other priorities to fill.

[zbhargrove]

If its Newcomb plus lower prospects for Kluber or Paxton then its a no brainer

[Southcack77]

So what you're saying is a team needs many good players...

Again, the Braves do not need to go out and get a "frontline starter" as some sort of prerequisite for post season success. That tired old cliche needs to stay in the 90s.

If the M's love Newk and are willing to give up Paxton for Newk plus Allard...then yes, get the "frontline starter". If it requires some market rate exchange of prospect value I would prefer the Braves focus on position players first because there are already many young talented options to take the mound.


Do championship teams require good offense and defense? Mind blown.

Sarcasm aside, this is a bit of a non-sequitur. The Braves don't have to choose between having great starting pitching and great hitting. They have the resources and the budget to field both.

I totally agree with you that the acquisition costs matters a whole lot. I wouldn't give up the world for it unless it was the last piece that needed to be addressed. I don't know the Braves are there year, but I'm interested to see what the offseason looks like. My heart wants them to take a modified all in approach that cashes in a lot of chips without overdoing it and without tying them down to big long term deals for aging vets. My head sometimes tells me that maybe they just need to chill out and be content with possibly not be a champion right now.

............

If championship teams having great starting pitching is a relic of the 90s, why do pretty much all of the World Series participants still feature top of the rotation talent now that we are nearly into the 2020s?


I realize that you don't believe in investing in pitching. I think you are a little bit too far down the path. The practical limitations of playoff rosters and the matchups you see in postseason make starting pitching as vital as ever, IMO. I don't believe it's particularly feasible to manage around its lack.

It's not going to guarantee you anything, but it's going to increase your chances. I don't think it is any accident the best staffs regularly advance.

[Enscheff]

Agreed. I started this thread because I saw a potential opportunity based on what Seattle, Arizona and Cleveland were trying to accomplish. It is possible that a player like Newcomb will check off some boxes for the GM for one of those teams and allow us to upgrade the starting rotation. If not, we have other priorities to fill.

Exactly. Newk may fit the "young cheap potential impact SP who is ready now" role those teams might be looking for in a trade like this. Fried might fit that role as well too. Some team may also still think Allard is an MLB SP.

The Indians and M's for sure are looking for those types of players. The M's just acquired Mallex Smith, and the Indians are definitely looking to reduce payroll without getting appreciably worse.

If they happen to overvalue guys like Newk, Fried and Allard then a nice value for a "frontline starter" might be there for the Braves.

[Enscheff]

Do championship teams require good offense and defense? Mind blown.

Sarcasm aside, this is a bit of a non-sequitur. The Braves don't have to choose between having great starting pitching and great hitting. They have the resources and the budget to field both.

I totally agree with you that the acquisition costs matters a whole lot. I wouldn't give up the world for it unless it was the last piece that needed to be addressed. I don't know the Braves are there year, but I'm interested to see what the offseason looks like. My heart wants them to take a modified all in approach that cashes in a lot of chips without overdoing it and without tying them down to big long term deals for aging vets. My head sometimes tells me that maybe they just need to chill out and be content with possibly not be a champion right now.

............

If championship teams having great starting pitching is a relic of the 90s, why do pretty much all of the World Series participants still feature top of the rotation talent now that we are nearly into the 2020s?


I realize that you don't believe in investing in pitching. I think you are a little bit too far down the path. The practical limitations of playoff rosters and the matchups you see in postseason make starting pitching as vital as ever, IMO. I don't believe it's particularly feasible to manage around its lack.

It's not going to guarantee you anything, but it's going to increase your chances. I don't think it is any accident the best staffs regularly advance.

This is not at all accurate. I am all for investing in talent that returns the most value. I loved investing top picks in Wright and Stewart because they represented the best value available. The bulk of any trade package from the Braves will be young pitching, and I don’t want to see them waste that value. I like pitching assets just fine.

The Braves have already invested significant resources into pitching. They now have gaping holes at C and cOF. They do not have gaping holes in the rotation.

The Braves have enough overall pitching talent to win a title, even if that talent may not be ready just yet. They do not have enough C or cOF talent to win a title, so I am in favor of spending resources there.

It's really a simple case of resource management. Address the gaping holes, then move onto the cracks and blemishes.

[Enscheff]

Mariners fan site had them reluctantly accepting Wright/Riley/Weigel for Paxton. I think that’s what some fans are scared of when discussing acquiring a pitcher. Obviously that would never happen.

This is the precise type of overpay for a "frontline starter" I'm talking about.

That package from the Braves is worth ~$90M ($42M for Wright, $43M for Riley, $5M for Weigel), and Paxton carries only ~$65M in surplus value (8.8 wins for ~$20M). I expect an M's fansite to err in the M's favor, but that is just silly.

Newk plus Allard for Paxton? Sure.

Riley plus Allard for Paxton? Sign me up.

[GovClintonTyree]

Agreed. I started this thread because I saw a potential opportunity based on what Seattle, Arizona and Cleveland were trying to accomplish. It is possible that a player like Newcomb will check off some boxes for the GM for one of those teams and allow us to upgrade the starting rotation. If not, we have other priorities to fill.

The Mariners ("control the zone") won't have interest in Newcomb at all. I suppose it's possible somebody will want to wait on him in one of those deals. It was a lot easier when Dave Stewart was around. And the Mariners will get a nice return for Paxton on the order of the Wright Weigel Riley discussion above. The surplus value on the prospect side is a quantification, but less certain than projecting the Paxton side. They'll get at least that from someone. Yankees and Astros are both interested.

[Heyward]

I am fine with trading guys. Just want impact bats. Not more pitching.

We need both, like it or not.

[Heyward]

This is not at all accurate. I am all for investing in talent that returns the most value. I loved investing top picks in Wright and Stewart because they represented the best value available. The bulk of any trade package from the Braves will be young pitching, and I don’t want to see them waste that value. I like pitching assets just fine.

The Braves have already invested significant resources into pitching. They now have gaping holes at C and cOF. They do not have gaping holes in the rotation.

The Braves have enough overall pitching talent to win a title, even if that talent may not be ready just yet. They do not have enough C or cOF talent to win a title, so I am in favor of spending resources there.

It's really a simple case of resource management. Address the gaping holes, then move onto the cracks and blemishes.

We agree here. cOF and C are the biggest holes as well as bench, and bullpen. If AA fills all that, and the Braves have enough prospect capital/money left, then see whats out there in the SP trade market.

But i wouldnt empty the farm for one unless the trade was in the Braves favor.

[clvclv]

The Mariners ("control the zone") won't have interest in Newcomb at all. I suppose it's possible somebody will want to wait on him in one of those deals. It was a lot easier when Dave Stewart was around. And the Mariners will get a nice return for Paxton on the order of the Wright Weigel Riley discussion above. The surplus value on the prospect side is a quantification, but less certain than projecting the Paxton side. They'll get at least that from someone. Yankees and Astros are both interested.

If they do, pat Dipoto on the back and sit back and laugh with everyone else at the GM that does something like that. A drastic overpay for that particular piece only makes sense if you're the Yankees and you think giving up Sheffield and Florial for Paxton and paying whatever it takes to get Corbin gets you past the Red Sox and Astros. That might be the case for them, because a Paxton/Severino/Corbin/Tanaka/Sabathia rotation with that much offense supporting them would HAVE to be the favorites for the next couple years.

I want an Ace as badly as anyone else, but we're just not in a position where that's our last piece. If AA got Grandal or Realmuto, another corner OF, a Closer, bench help like Gonzalez, and could add Camargo to the bench if Riley's ready to take over at 3B in July, I'd be all for using the pieces that are left to go get Kluber, Carrasco, or Paxton - just not right now - we've still got too many holes to fill. If you think about it, if the Gnats added Grandal or Realmuto, LeMahieu or Dozier, and Corbin/Keuchel/Happ with the money they were going to pay Harper and the money they were paying Wieters OR the Phillies get Machado or Harper and go on a spending spree the Braves might not even be the favorites in the NL East next season even with one of those guys at the top of the rotation.

[Carp]

We need both, like it or not.

"Need" is not how I would desribe the current layout of our team. Pitching is absolutely the least of our problems.

[Carp]

Yeah..that's the point. They gave the Dodgers all they could handle with a terrible rotation. Maybe someone needs to go tell them how much they needed a "frontline starter"?

I mean Cole Hamels or JA Happ absolutely could have made a difference in a short series with the way they were pitching in the 2nd half. I wouldn't call their rotation terrible either. More like average.

I know the people say the playoffs are a "crapshoot", but let's be real. The Stros, Red Sox, and Yankees were all going to destroy any NL team that made the WS this year. So it's a moot point, imo.