Discussion of Braves 2018 Offseason plans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

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).

---

LOL or more likely something centered around Stanton for Pederson plus cheap pitching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

LOL or more likely something centered around Stanton for Pederson plus cheap pitching.

---

Maybe. But I think the Dodgers will use their financial capability to take advantage of the Marlins predicament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

Maybe. But I think the Dodgers will use their financial capability to take advantage of the Marlins predicament.

---

I think there is enough of a market for Stanton to prevent something like that from happening...there should be two or three serious bidders

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

I think there is enough of a market for Stanton to prevent something like that from happening...there should be two or three serious bidders

---

I think the market will determine the degree. I don't think there is any question that the M's won't get full talent value unless they are willing to eat a bunch of money and they can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

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.

---

Totally agree. Don't tie up any payroll beyond 2019. Make some value plays. Try to get lucky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Southcack77

Totally agree. Don't tie up any payroll beyond 2019. Make some value plays. Try to get lucky.

---

That's probably the smart play.

But, it pushes the front of the window back in time and because of missteps, mismanagement, missed opportunity and now Coppygate the back of the window is coming forward in time.

Trevor Rosenthal any one? 27 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ixiXSolidXixi

Trevor Rosenthal any one? 27 years old.

---

He just had TJ this August, so won't be pitching until the end of 2018.

He would be a guy the Braves could sign to a cheap deal in 2018 with an option for 2019 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

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.

---

The thing people have to realize is, even with all of the tanking, it still took a lot of luck for Houston to have this team. Sure, Correa and Springer and Bregman were top picks. But they also had some bad top picks. Altuve was never expected to be a perennial MVP candidate and Keuchel was never expected to be a perennial ace. Around that, they acquired veteran pieces to finish it off, like McCann, Gattis, Reddick, Gurriel, Morton, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBrave

The thing people have to realize is, even with all of the tanking, it still took a lot of luck for Houston to have this team. Sure, Correa and Springer and Bregman were top picks. But they also had some bad top picks. Altuve was never expected to be a perennial MVP candidate and Keuchel was never expected to be a perennial ace. Around that, they acquired veteran pieces to finish it off, like McCann, Gattis, Reddick, Gurriel, Morton, etc.

---

They tanked and gathered a large amount of early picks plus benefited from early picks in each subsequent round after round one - Is it better to be the Yankees picking last in round one or the Astros picking 2/1 (discounting that they already picked 1/1)? The Astros also did well with international FA. And, this is key they entered their real period of emerging competitive capability with a low payroll allowing them to trade for more expensive piecers like McCann and sign targeted FA like Reddick and Morton and pick off a top International FA like Gurriel.

Yes they had and needed luck. But the degree that they are built to depend on good luck is in a completely different galaxy from the need for the Braves to have good luck. The Astros had a real plan. The Braves have had about 50 plans that change, if not day to day or week to week, at least month to month.

Best stroke of luck the Astros had was not coming to terms with Aiken. But they did things correctly. Little question of that. Agree with the low payroll going into their contention window being an underappreciated key. A lot like the 1991 Braves.

The Braves have taken as many side-steps as missteps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 50PoundHead

Best stroke of luck the Astros had was not coming to terms with Aiken. But they did things correctly. Little question of that. Agree with the low payroll going into their contention window being an underappreciated key. A lot like the 1991 Braves.

The Braves have taken as many side-steps as missteps.

---

The only real misstep was Wood for HO. Simmons was not a good trade, and weirder given we opted to hold on the Freeman and Teheran.

As it it though, the contracts of Muk, Kemp, JJ and a few others will be off the books by 2020. So even without any increase in payroll, we will have the funds by 2020 to selectively plug some holes with two or three solid veterans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

The only real misstep was Wood for HO. Simmons was not a good trade, and weirder given we opted to hold on the Freeman and Teheran.

As it it though, the contracts of Muk, Kemp, JJ and a few others will be off the books by 2020. So even without any increase in payroll, we will have the funds by 2020 to selectively plug some holes with two or three solid veterans.

---

By 2020 Teheran will be coming off the books and a year later Freeman. So, assuming 2020 is a serious contention year (obviously luck could help OR hinder) then the Braves will have gone through the entire rebuild only to lose two of its most valuable assets just as it enters its window of opportunity. Until 2020 some of those you mentioned will continue to hinder and possibly provide negative value on a limited budget.

It's clear the Braves wanted a limited rebuild with a fast return to contention. They kept several of their most valuable trade assets while trading others. Now, they will watch guys like Teheran, Freeman and even Folty and Inciarte play through their primes, in some cases their contracts, only to potentially leave just when the window is nice and open (for however short a time period that is). And, when Freeman is ready to become a FA once again in 2022 he will be entering his 32 YO season, not someone you want to tie 25% of your payroll to.

The Braves bungled the rebuild. Before Coppygate. Depending on how bad the fall out from Coppygate is, the results will either be a shortened window of contention or round 2 of rebuilds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nsacpi

The only real misstep was Wood for HO. Simmons was not a good trade, and weirder given we opted to hold on the Freeman and Teheran.

As it it though, the contracts of Muk, Kemp, JJ and a few others will be off the books by 2020. So even without any increase in payroll, we will have the funds by 2020 to selectively plug some holes with two or three solid veterans.

---

I keep hearing that Simmons was a bad trade. Not saying I disagree, but I thought the point was to get out of the contract and not have to pay him high amounts during years we weren't going to contend. At the time we traded him, it also looked like the bat was never going to develop either. Obviously, his defense was always going to make the contract a value for any team, even as he makes 11 mil, 13 mil, and 15 mil in the next 3 years. But I kinda got the feeling the trade happened because we gave up on his bat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NYCBrave

I keep hearing that Simmons was a bad trade. Not saying I disagree, but I thought the point was to get out of the contract and not have to pay him high amounts during years we weren't going to contend. At the time we traded him, it also looked like the bat was never going to develop either. Obviously, his defense was always going to make the contract a value for any team, even as he makes 11 mil, 13 mil, and 15 mil in the next 3 years. But I kinda got the feeling the trade happened because we gave up on his bat.

---

To me, it was a bad trade because the Braves didn't get more back. Sure, Newk was a top 100 player. But he was a heavy risk with his short history in baseball and heavy control issues. But, he was fine as part of the return. My issue was the inclusion of Aybar. The trade was Simmons and Briceno for Newcomb, Ellis, Aybar and cash. The year before he was traded, even with his struggles at the plate, Simmons was a 4 WAR player, with a 1.2 oWAR. The inclusion of Aybar diluted the return. Argument can be made that it was bad luck that Aybar's 2.3 WAR play for the Angels didn't translate to more than (-.4) WAR for the Braves and that's true but irrelevant. The Braves were beginning the process of a 5 year rebuild but shorted themselves on the return for one of their best assets just so they could hopefully lose draft, J2, waiver and rule 5 position but not being quite as bad as they should have been (and should have wanted to be). Unfortunately, Aybar pulled a fast one on them and sucked tremendously and they not only wore the L's but did it with less rebuild talent.

To me, that's bad luck spawned by a bad plan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

To me, it was a bad trade because the Braves didn't get more back. Sure, Newk was a top 100 player. But he was a heavy risk with his short history in baseball and heavy control issues. But, he was fine as part of the return. My issue was the inclusion of Aybar. The trade was Simmons and Briceno for Newcomb, Ellis, Aybar and cash. The year before he was traded, even with his struggles at the plate, Simmons was a 4 WAR player, with a 1.2 oWAR. The inclusion of Aybar diluted the return. Argument can be made that it was bad luck that Aybar's 2.3 WAR play for the Angels didn't translate to more than (-.4) WAR for the Braves and that's true but irrelevant. The Braves were beginning the process of a 5 year rebuild but shorted themselves on the return for one of their best assets just so they could hopefully lose draft, J2, waiver and rule 5 position but not being quite as bad as they should have been (and should have wanted to be). Unfortunately, Aybar pulled a fast one on them and sucked tremendously and they not only wore the L's but did it with less rebuild talent.

To me, that's bad luck spawned by a bad plan.

---

Yeah, having Aybar included was a loser move. If we'd immediately turned around and traded Aybar for something useful (I remember teams being interested in him) then it would have been a better deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by striker42

Yeah, having Aybar included was a loser move. If we'd immediately turned around and traded Aybar for something useful (I remember teams being interested in him) then it would have been a better deal.

---

Wanted to steal some time at the position and trade him near deadline, I will wager. Didn't expect him to flop. I don't think it cost them much in prospects if anything to acquire him. Obviously trading him immediately probably would have worked out better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry

To me, it was a bad trade because the Braves didn't get more back. Sure, Newk was a top 100 player. But he was a heavy risk with his short history in baseball and heavy control issues. But, he was fine as part of the return. My issue was the inclusion of Aybar. The trade was Simmons and Briceno for Newcomb, Ellis, Aybar and cash. The year before he was traded, even with his struggles at the plate, Simmons was a 4 WAR player, with a 1.2 oWAR. The inclusion of Aybar diluted the return. Argument can be made that it was bad luck that Aybar's 2.3 WAR play for the Angels didn't translate to more than (-.4) WAR for the Braves and that's true but irrelevant. The Braves were beginning the process of a 5 year rebuild but shorted themselves on the return for one of their best assets just so they could hopefully lose draft, J2, waiver and rule 5 position but not being quite as bad as they should have been (and should have wanted to be). Unfortunately, Aybar pulled a fast one on them and sucked tremendously and they not only wore the L's but did it with less rebuild talent.

To me, that's bad luck spawned by a bad plan.

---

The Simmons trade was defensible in a vacuum. It wasn't good, and probably pretty bad, but it was defensible.

What was indefensible was trading Simmons (controlled through 2020), but keeping Freeman (through 2021) and especially keeping Teheran (through 2020). If the rebuild was going to take long enough that Simmons had to go, why in the world would they keep Freeman and Teheran?

This type of disjointed rebuild strategy is the biggest failure of the FO and the cause of all the (non-legal) issues the team faces.

So Otani hired an agent...I doubt the Braves have a chance at him.

I'm not sure is his offspeed pitch a forkball or a split. That looks to be his best pitch. He does have a decent curve, but that offspeed speed pitch just seems to disappear. Looks more like forkball to me than a split.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

The Simmons trade was defensible in a vacuum. It wasn't good, and probably pretty bad, but it was defensible.

What was indefensible was trading Simmons (controlled through 2020), but keeping Freeman (through 2021) and especially keeping Teheran (through 2020). If the rebuild was going to take long enough that Simmons had to go, why in the world would they keep Freeman and Teheran?

This type of disjointed rebuild strategy is the biggest failure of the FO and the cause of all the (non-legal) issues the team faces.

---

Here's my thing, it's easy to look back and question the Simmons move, but it's so easy to forget how bad Simmons was looking with the bat. Consider these stats:

2012: .289 avg, .751 OPS, 3 HR's, 12 BB's
2013: .248 avg, .692 OPS, 17 HR's, 40 BB's
2014: .244 avg, .617 OPS, 7 HR's, 32 BB's
2015: .265 avg, .659 OPS, 4 HR's, 39 BB's
2016: .281 avg, .690 OPS, 4 HR's, 28 BB's (first year with Angels)

Of course we all know how 2017 turned out. But legitimately, it looked like his development was headed in the wrong direction, and at best we'd have an all glove player, with a chance he didn't even hit enough to be a major leaguer.

So this is not a defense to saying we did the right thing, but he was legitimately one of the worst hitters in the league for a couple of years there. 2017 was pretty unexpected.