Discussion of Braves 2018 Offseason plans

I think it's safe to say that the "rebuild" wasn't going to plan even before Coppygate. Some things have worked out well - the ascendance of Acuna, the good play of Albies, the emergence of Freeman as a yearly star candidate, the good play of Inciarte after the supposed "fleecing" of Arizona in the Miller trade, etc. But for every thing that has gone right there has been something that has gone wrong, some terribly wrong - the HO trade, the Simmons trade (not Newk necessarily but the lack of a better return for a player of Simmons' capability), the Markakis signing (not that he's been terrible per se but that the reasoning behind signing him was never good), the compounding of the HO error by bringing in Kemp, the rush to try to be competitive therefore missing opportunities to get better long term at the expense of short term, the faceplant of many pitching prospects and the delayed arrival of others, etc. then you have Coppygate.

So, if you stand back and look at the full tapestry then the Braves actions only make sense IF they planned to significantly increase payroll in 2018 and 2019 by adding necessary FA to fill holes to make the team good. If they never had that in the plans then the whole actions of the rebuild really make no sense.

Well, now we are where we are with 2017 falling, apparently, below revenue expectations with rumblings from the FO that payroll would not increase but potentially decrease between 2017 and 2018, even before Coppygate broke. Which calls further into question the wisdom of any of the win-now moves made along the way the last three years.

And, now we come to Coppygate. It's apparent Coppy and his minions got caught misbehaving. And I, like many, believe that he was headed for the door before this convenient excuse presented itself. But, you have to question how much of what he did, whatever that is, was a direct result of the strategy mandated by the upper FO to "reload" instead of "rebuild" but from a starting point of a poor minor league system and limited money both short term and long term. In other words, could the Braves get to the desired location, given assets short and long term, without breaking the rules along the way?

So now, where does it all go? Coppygate provides a built in excuse for failure - "things were going well before Coppy went off the reservation." And it looks like the Braves want to hire a "baseball guy" to run the FO, not a "rebuild guy." So, the rebuild is over apparently. But, should it be? If you look at this team and accept that the budget isn't going to grow anytime soon, can this team not only become competitive but stay competitive for a window of opportunity?

As they say, anything's possible. But the Braves are now in the realm of relying very heavily on the arrival of good luck - they get an ace or two from their current pitching crop (instead of good serviceable ML arms), Acuna plays at All-Star levels very quickly, the new FO makes all the right moves and keeps the good ones while getting others to take the bad ones... Good Luck is always a factor. But, the amount that you have to rely on good luck is a very big part of the success equation.

Has a small or mid-market team ever "rebuilt" in less than five years?

From 2010 to 2015 Houston drafted #8, #11, #1, #1, #1, #5

During the same period, Cleveland drafted #5, #8, #15, #5, #21, #17

I think these two teams offer a fair benchmark.

We have been drafting high since 2015, with the #14, #3 and #5 picks the past three years, and #8 next year.

We are unlikely to make the playoffs in 2018 and probably won't in 2019. Maybe 2020. So pretty close to the Houston and Cleveland pattern. Which to me is somewhat disappointing. I thought we had a super-smart front office that could do better than other teams like Houston and Cleveland. Coppy was whip-smart and had those two great mentors to help him out. And with Wren gone, all those super-scouts from the glory years had flocked back for the second golden age of the Braves Way.

More seriously, we had some highly sought after talent that we peddled away at the start of the rebuild. It seems fair to take that into account and say we should have been able to compress the rebuild relative to teams that did not have that kind of talent to jump start things. But we have the #1 farm system. That counts for something.

In terms of competitive window, Houston has made the playoffs two of the past three years and looks like they have at least a couple more years ahead. Possibly quite a bit more than two if they manage things well and have some luck. Cleveland looks to be in a similar situation. So both of those teams have been able to achieve a competitive window of at least 5 years, possibly quite a bit longer.

I actually think the Braves will follow a somewhat similar pattern. But maybe not to the extent of having a 100 plus win team in the middle of that window. I think we'll have a 5-10 year run of teams that are mostly in the 85-95 win range. Starting in 2020 (give or take a year). And there might be a couple years where we are outside that range (maybe one year to the low side and one year to the high side).

Btw I think the above scenario has been what some of the more sober-minded posters have had in mind from the very start of the rebuild. There have been some extreme optimists. But its a bit of a red herring to hold up their views as representative.

Also the front office has done a fair amount of spinning suggesting a more compressed time frame for the rebuild. But that's part of their job, maybe more so than usual because of the new stadium. Its hard to say how much of it they really believed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

In terms of competitive window, Houston has made the playoffs two of the past three years and looks like they have at least a couple more years ahead. Possibly quite a bit more than two if they manage things well and have some luck. Cleveland looks to be in a similar situation. So both of those teams have been able to achieve a competitive window of at least 5 years, possibly quite a bit longer.

I actually think the Braves will follow a somewhat similar pattern. But maybe not to the extent of having a 100 plus win team in the middle of that window. I think we'll have a 5-10 year run of teams that are mostly in the 85-95 win range. Starting in 2020 (give or take a year). And there might be a couple years where we are outside that range (maybe one year to the low side and one year to the high side).

Btw I think the above scenario has been what some of the more sober-minded posters have had in mind from the very start of the rebuild. There have been some extreme optimists. But its a bit of a red herring to hold up their views as representative.

Also the front office has done a fair amount of spinning suggesting a more compressed time frame for the rebuild. But that's part of their job, maybe more so than usual because of the new stadium. Its hard to say how much of it they really believed.

---

I think all of the hoopla about being competitive in 2017 was 100% part of the plan. The team was already routinely drawing 2.5 million to Turner, and they decided to move to the center of their fan base to increase attendance and revenue. A typical attendance boost from a new stadium is ~25%, so all projections were likely done assuming the Braves attendance would increase to ~3 million. We were told this new revenue would allow a Top 10 payroll, and we saw them increase payroll to $125M for 2017.

The rebuild was embarked upon AFTER the new stadium details were finalized, and there is no way a rebuild would have been allowed if the FO didn't make assurances that the team would be competitive in time to draw the projected 3 million fans. We saw every single deal they made during the rebuild have at least some portion of it geared towards 2017. All deals either freed up money for 2017, or had players included that could contribute by 2017. Players who weren't dealt (Freeman and Teheran) were kept explicitly to produce in 2017.

Problem is they sucked in 2017. Attendance came nowhere near the projected 3 million. There is no chance payroll is going up until attendance increases, and it is most likely going down before it goes up.

Trade for Stanton and call it a winter.

Can probably get him for Fried, Allard, and Kemp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

Trade for Stanton and call it a winter.

Can probably get him for Fried, Allard, and Kemp.

---

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Marlins will not be taking a bad contract back when trading Stanton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

I think it's safe to say that the "rebuild" wasn't going to plan even before Coppygate. Some things have worked out well - the ascendance of Acuna, the good play of Albies, the emergence of Freeman as a yearly star candidate, the good play of Inciarte after the supposed "fleecing" of Arizona in the Miller trade, etc. But for every thing that has gone right there has been something that has gone wrong, some terribly wrong - the HO trade, the Simmons trade (not Newk necessarily but the lack of a better return for a player of Simmons' capability), the Markakis signing (not that he's been terrible per se but that the reasoning behind signing him was never good), the compounding of the HO error by bringing in Kemp, the rush to try to be competitive therefore missing opportunities to get better long term at the expense of short term, the faceplant of many pitching prospects and the delayed arrival of others, etc. then you have Coppygate.

So, if you stand back and look at the full tapestry then the Braves actions only make sense IF they planned to significantly increase payroll in 2018 and 2019 by adding necessary FA to fill holes to make the team good. If they never had that in the plans then the whole actions of the rebuild really make no sense.

Well, now we are where we are with 2017 falling, apparently, below revenue expectations with rumblings from the FO that payroll would not increase but potentially decrease between 2017 and 2018, even before Coppygate broke. Which calls further into question the wisdom of any of the win-now moves made along the way the last three years.

And, now we come to Coppygate. It's apparent Coppy and his minions got caught misbehaving. And I, like many, believe that he was headed for the door before this convenient excuse presented itself. But, you have to question how much of what he did, whatever that is, was a direct result of the strategy mandated by the upper FO to "reload" instead of "rebuild" but from a starting point of a poor minor league system and limited money both short term and long term. In other words, could the Braves get to the desired location, given assets short and long term, without breaking the rules along the way?

So now, where does it all go? Coppygate provides a built in excuse for failure - "things were going well before Coppy went off the reservation." And it looks like the Braves want to hire a "baseball guy" to run the FO, not a "rebuild guy." So, the rebuild is over apparently. But, should it be? If you look at this team and accept that the budget isn't going to grow anytime soon, can this team not only become competitive but stay competitive for a window of opportunity?

As they say, anything's possible. But the Braves are now in the realm of relying very heavily on the arrival of good luck - they get an ace or two from their current pitching crop (instead of good serviceable ML arms), Acuna plays at All-Star levels very quickly, the new FO makes all the right moves and keeps the good ones while getting others to take the bad ones... Good Luck is always a factor. But, the amount that you have to rely on good luck is a very big part of the success equation.

---

The love for Andrelton borders on the Heyward craziness - dude hit .272/.321/.385/.707 when he was here. He's a great defensive player, but if the Braves would've left well enough alone and the Miller trade wouldn't have been made, Albies would still wind up being a more valuable player at SS when their careers were done. Of course he would've been moved to 2B in deference to Simmons if those trades hadn't been made when he came up anyway and the Braves wouldn't have Newcomb OR Inciarte,

The "what ifs" will go on forever, and the chances are pretty good that the franchise still wouldn't be any better off - great defensive SSs don't do you much good when everybody's hitting balls in the gaps..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Marlins will not be taking a bad contract back when trading Stanton.

---

I'll only reply because I've been saying that for months, and Harry continues to believe otherwise. Of course, given your infatuation with me you knew that already since you seem to hang out here 23 hours a day to see what I have to say.

:facepalm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

Has a small or mid-market team ever "rebuilt" in less than five years?

From 2010 to 2015 Houston drafted #8, #11, #1, #1, #1, #5

During the same period, Cleveland drafted #5, #8, #15, #5, #21, #17

I think these two teams offer a fair benchmark.

We have been drafting high since 2015, with the #14, #3 and #5 picks the past three years, and #8 next year.

We are unlikely to make the playoffs in 2018 and probably won't in 2019. Maybe 2020. So pretty close to the Houston and Cleveland pattern. Which to me is somewhat disappointing. I thought we had a super-smart front office that could do better than other teams like Houston and Cleveland. Coppy was whip-smart and had those two great mentors to help him out. And with Wren gone, all those super-scouts from the glory years had flocked back for the second golden age of the Braves Way.

More seriously, we had some highly sought after talent that we peddled away at the start of the rebuild. It seems fair to take that into account and say we should have been able to compress the rebuild relative to teams that did not have that kind of talent to jump start things. But we have the #1 farm system. That counts for something.

---

While I think the Braves should be shooting for similar results, I think you have to look a little below the surface of Houston and Cleveland. Take Houston for instance, before appearing in the playoffs in 2015, the Astros had not been to the playoffs since 2005. During that period of 10 years their best record was in 2008 where they finished 3rd in their division at 86-75. The only other above .500 finish they had was in 2006 at 82-80. So, while they have been officially rebuilding for 5 or so years before winning the WS, they've really been in a rebuilding mode for 10 years. Only After they committed to tanking in 2011 did they begin to pull out of the purgatory that they had fallen into. Now, this is one of the top 5 Metro markets in the Country and they have no other competitors close outside of the Rangers who are several hundred miles away. They operate as small to mid market club but that's derivative from ownership not opportunity.

Cleveland is different. They are a small market. And they never went all in, tank your way to success rebuild. Before making the playoffs in 2013, they had not been since 2007 and before that 2001. However, their records weren't totally horrible. Their worst year in 2009 the record was 65- 97. They mostly bounced around in the range of 65 wins up to 81 wins dating back to 2007 but before their playoff appearance in 2013. The one thing that Cleveland has working for it though is that they play in the traditionally very weak AL Central.

My guess is that the Braves hoped to travel the path of Cleveland instead of Houston but didn't account for the need of good luck and a better division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

I'll only reply because I've been saying that for months, and Harry continues to believe otherwise. Of course, given your infatuation with me you knew that already since you seem to hang out here 23 hours a day to see what I have to say.

:facepalm:

---

You're like the media. You pick out parts of what was said and deliver it out of context then do a victory dance around the room slapping high fives with anyone who is willing to celebrate your brilliance. Problem is that it's getting harder for you to find a hand to slap. So, I guess you'll have to keep giving yourself a hand. It's a job that you're familiar with...

The Indians went five years between winning seasons and the middle three were in the 60s.

The Braves are not even going to consider trading for Stanton.

The Braves are three years into a rebuild. The biggest failure during the entire rebuild would seem to be the pending penalties from MLB which really could be a real problem.

For the most part, people are not patient enough to actually handle the realities of rebuilds. Five years is a long time. Most people can manage one.

I still don't see any particular reason why the Braves can't contend in the 2020s, which is when I thought their window would open. I also don't see much reason why under the right circumstances they might not be in the playoff chase in 2019 or even potentially 2018 (this requires a good bit of prospect luck).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southcack77

I still don't see any particular reason why the Braves can't contend in the 2020s, which is when I thought their window would open. I also don't see much reason why under the right circumstances they might not be in the playoff chase in 2019 or even potentially 2018 (this requires a good bit of prospect luck).

---

We project to be about a .500 team in 2018, which I think calls for a fairly generic approach to the off-season. Try to put a decent product on the field. Patch up the obvious weaknesses. And above all focus on what I call the "value proposition." Which means don't do trades or free agent signings that don't project to yield good value relative to what we are paying. That might seem to be a case of stating the obvious. But for some teams under some circumstances it makes sense to overpay for a particular player. We are not there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

My guess is that the Braves hoped to travel the path of Cleveland instead of Houston but didn't account for the need of good luck and a better division.

---

Cleveland had to contend with Detroit, who were strong WS contenders for a long time, and the Royals, who made it to back-to-back WS.

Depending on what happens with the gnats after 2018, things could open up in the NL East. It looks like the Phillies rebuild is at about the same stage as ours. I think the Marlins are unlikely to contend anytime soon. Mets are hard to figure. A lot turns on the health of their pitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

Cleveland had to contend with Detroit, who were strong WS contenders for a long time, and the Royals, who made it to back-to-back WS.

Depending on what happens with the gnats after 2018, things could open up in the NL East. It looks like the Phillies rebuild is at about the same stage as ours. I think the Marlins are unlikely to contend anytime soon. Mets are hard to figure. A lot turns on the health of their pitching.

---

All true. However, I think the KC angle is that they were far into a 10+ year rebuild and finally aligned all the pieces for a short lived run. Essentially they built over 10 years to have a good 3-5 years where the high water mark was a WS and are now well past the crest and on their way back to obscurity. Dayton Moore would do well to get out if he can.

Detroit is a bit of a different animal. They spent like a large market team for a long time and few other teams in the division could compete until that team got old. They are now far into an age decline and the money is drying up. Clevelands window began to open with the age decline of Detroit but was stalled temporarily by the coincidental emergence of a short lived KC run.

Now Cleveland is fully into their window and may stay for a while, longer than should probably be the case, simply because 3/5 of their division are in the starting stages of a rebuild and the 4th, Minnesota, is at the end stage of a Braves style rebuild with no money and no staying power. It's a happy circumstance for them.

Houston is built for a longer period of excellence in a tougher division (generally) because they fully committed to the rebuild process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

Houston is built for a longer period of excellence in a tougher division (generally) because they fully committed to the rebuild process.

---

Houston imo also benefits from issues with the other teams in the division. The A's lack the financial resources and are in a down cycle. Seattle is just not a very well run franchise. The Angels have the Pujols contract plus a perennially weak farm system. Which leaves the Rangers as the only potential competitor the next few years, and they have yuge issues with starting pitching. I suspect the A's will be the Astros next real competitor in that division and that's several years off into the future. For the next couple years, the other teams might catch lightning in a bottle and nip at their heels, but we're talking one-offs here.

With respect to Kansas City and Dayton Moore. If you do a ratio of competitive years versus years in the wilderness and make an adjustment for financial resources, I think the track record in KC is fairly mediocre. Some of it predates Moore, but he's been there since 2006.

KC draft position over the years: #7 in 1997, #4 in 1998, #7 in 1999, #4 in 2000, #9 in 2001, #6 in 2002 (Zack Greinke), #5 in 2003, #14 in 2004, #2 in 2005, #1 in 2006, #2 in 2007, #3 in 2008, #12 in 2009, #4 in 2010, #5 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #8 in 2013

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southcack77

The Indians went five years between winning seasons and the middle three were in the 60s.

The Braves are not even going to consider trading for Stanton.

The Braves are three years into a rebuild. The biggest failure during the entire rebuild would seem to be the pending penalties from MLB which really could be a real problem.

For the most part, people are not patient enough to actually handle the realities of rebuilds. Five years is a long time. Most people can manage one.

I still don't see any particular reason why the Braves can't contend in the 2020s, which is when I thought their window would open. I also don't see much reason why under the right circumstances they might not be in the playoff chase in 2019 or even potentially 2018 (this requires a good bit of prospect luck).

---

The Braves likely will (or would) have tried to trade for Stanton this offseason. If the payroll definitely shrinks, I can't really see any path to that. However, Hart and Company have shown that they are more interested in the business aspect of the rebuild than building itself by pushing up Swanson and others when it made no sense to do so while being so deep in a rebuild except as a way to put fans in the seats. The Braves, given a way to find the money, WILL try to make some kind of splash move this offseason (unless the whole Coppygate completely derails the rebuild) simply because they need to market their way to 3M fans in the seats. Most of those 3M fans will have no idea who Yandy Diaz is, nor care. However, they know who Stanton is; they know who Arrieta is; they know who Moustakas is, etc.

I've been on record from the beginning as saying the Braves should have been willing to take it down to ground level and build from bottom to top taking as long as needed to establish a franchise with a long window of opportunity where you could slowly ramp up the payroll as needed in the later stages of the rebuild once you know your holes. The Braves didn't go that way. They tied up payroll into useless complimentary pieces in effort to create the illusion of a short time away from winning. It didn't work.

Having said that, the Marlins are a wounded beast that some team will take advantage of. If they truly want to cut payroll to the levels that have been discussed publicly then they have a hell of a job ahead of them. I think everybody agrees, including me, that trading Stanton by himself should return quite a haul. Not a huge haul since he is owed so much over so long and forget the opt out, any acquiring club has to acquire him with the thought that he won't opt out.

The Marlins don't want to eat any of the contract. It remains to be seen if they can pull that off. He cleared waivers and could have been claimed by anyone in the middle of a pennant chase but wasn't which means to me that teams think they can get him without paying his full contract. Also, it means to me that teams don't think he will cost much prospect wise because of his contract. In other words they see Marlin blood in the water.

A smart team will be able to get Stanton at pennies on the dollar for what he would normally bring. You have to remember that this isn't Stanton in his second year with 4 years of control at a relatively small number. This is a guy who's signed for 11 more years at an AAV of about $29M. Ozuna will bring more prospect value in return and Yelich would bring quite a bit more.

The thing is, if the Marlins are to be believed, trading Stanton (assuming you find someone to take all his contract) is nowhere near enough. Prado is going to make $13.5M and $15M over the next two years but is coming off a lost year and will be 35. Volquez is owed $13M and out for 18 after Tommy John (maybe they had some insurance that helps here). Ozuna is set for what will likely be a historic arbitration. Dee Gordon is signed for 3 more years at about an AAV of $13M. Chen has likely the worst contract in baseball with no possibility of moving under any circumstances. Ziegler is owed $9M. Tazawa $7M.

Everyone wants to talk about Yelich, Realmuto, Dietriech, Bour, Straily, etc. Newsflash: those guys aren't the problem.

Do I want the Braves to trade for Stanton? No, obviously I wanted the Braves to go a different way. They didn't.

So, now I say, if you are going to use money to land a "name" player for the consumption of the fans, then do it the best way possible.

I suggested, back when it appeared that the Braves would have money, that the Braves be willing to do a huge deal with the Marlins, essentially fixing both teams problems in one move while obtaining Stanton plus. I think it could have been done at very little prospect cost to the Braves as long as they took on enough money.

It's all academic since with Coppygate, the expected stagnation and possible reduction in payroll, and the likelihood that Stanton will view the Braves as nowhere near being competitive and use his no-trade rights, I expect Stanton to end up with the LA Dodgers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

Houston imo also benefits from issues with the other teams in the division. The A's lack the financial resources and are in a down cycle. Seattle is just not a very well run franchise. The Angels have the Pujols contract plus a perennially weak farm system. Which leaves the Rangers as the only potential competitor the next few years, and they have yuge issues with starting pitching. I suspect the A's will be the Astros next real competitor in that division and that's several years off into the future. For the next couple years, the other teams might catch lightning in a bottle and nip at their heels, but we're talking one-offs here.

With respect to Kansas City and Dayton Moore. If you do a ratio of competitive years versus years in the wilderness and make an adjustment for financial resources, I think the track record in KC is fairly mediocre. Some of it predates Moore, but he's been there since 2006.

KC draft position over the years: #7 in 1997, #4 in 1998, #7 in 1999, #4 in 2000, #9 in 2001, #6 in 2002 (Zack Greinke), #5 in 2003, #14 in 2004, #2 in 2005, #1 in 2006, #2 in 2007, #3 in 2008, #12 in 2009, #4 in 2010, #5 in 2011, #6 in 2012, #8 in 2013

---

True Houston does benefit some. However, both Seattle and LA, while poorly run, have been known to spend a lot of money (like Detroit). Their problem is leadership (or lack) not funding. Oakland is kinda the Tampa of the West, mostly run well, dangerous from time to time, but really just biding time until a new stadium deal comes along. Texas is generally a real threat but are on a down cycle after selling the farm to compete in recent years and bad signings/poor luck with guys such as Fielder.

As for KC, I completely agree. They really have underperformed for the most part considering the extended period of awfulness they have endured. I actually think they were hugely lucky in their recent playoff years to be in a Division where every other team kind of perfect stormed themselves into the gutter.

I think the Giants, Cards, gnats, and Red Sox will have interest in Stanton. Probably one of them will sign JD Martinez, which will leave the three others in competition for Stanton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

I think the Giants, Cards, gnats, and Red Sox will have interest in Stanton. Probably one of them will sign JD Martinez, which will leave the three others in competition for Stanton

---

Throw the Dodgers into the Stanton mix too.

The Marlins are going to want someone who can immediately replace Stanton in the OF, and some pitching. In exchange they may be willing to eat a portion of the contract AFTER the opt out to help mitigate the risk of the contract becoming an albatross.

I have to think the Cards are the best fit. They can offer one of their young MLB OFers as well as a pitcher like Flaherty who is ready to contribute now. That kid Alcantara looked like a monster beast stud in the Fall Stars game.

I would put the Dodgers as the next most likely team to acquire Stanton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

I think the Giants, Cards, gnats, and Red Sox will have interest in Stanton. Probably one of them will sign JD Martinez, which will leave the three others in competition for Stanton

---

Agree. I also think the Yankees will have interest. They would market along the lines of something like: the new twin towers or something. But, I don't think Jeter will be in any big hurry to do favors for the Red Sox, meaning they would have to clearly offer more than everyone else, and I don't think he wants to start out as being seen as the Yankees B*tch.

I wonder if Stanton wants to play with the Giants. If I were him, I wouldn't since the Park is bad for hitters and they obviously look close to an age related rebuild. They might spend their way out of it but have a ton of age.

The gNats make some sense but have traded a lot over the last several years. They might get it done if they take the whole contract. I guess you assume they punt on Harper. I did notice, looking at Cot's, that they are very creative on their contracts to their pitchers: Scherzer is apparently paid nothing in 19, 20, 21 with all his money to be paid in deferred installments of $15M per year from 22-28; and Strasbourg getting 15, 35, 25, 15, 15 then $45M in 2023! Other than those two contracts they aren't in horrible shape.

The Cards make some sense. But, I doubt they will be willing to take the whole contract.

I still think it will be the Dodgers and I think it will be big. Something like: Stanton, Straily and Ozuna to the Dodgers for Puig, Grandal, Pederson, Alex Verdugo and Yadier Alvarez. The M's then flip Grandal and Pederson and play Puig in RF. It would put the Dodgers in a short term bind on payroll but they would clean that up after 2018 when they get rid of Gonzalez, Kazmir, McCarthy, Ryu, and Forsythe (assuming is 18 option is picked up).