Because those young assets aren't productive?Originally Posted by sturg33
In 22 starts since the trade, Wood has been mediocre. Peraza has been replacement-level.
Because those young assets aren't productive?
In 22 starts since the trade, Wood has been mediocre. Peraza has been replacement-level.
Mediocre would be fine so we don't have to go out and sign RA Dickey.
John fatigue. everyone is ready for results. Plus everyone is forgetting the garbage trades that did amount to stuff.
we turn Juan Jamie and Cahill into Uribe who turned into Gant and Whalen who turned into TD +
We still have Paco from the HO deal..
We got Krol as an off shoot to the Kimbrell deal.
We traded Frenchy and some international coin for Dylan Moore
there have a lot of under the radar type moves that I have to give him credit for.
The fact is....while the HO trade didn't really hurt us...we could have gotten a good MLB player or probably 3 good prospects. For what we gave up.
We could a have gotten two more good prospects in the Kimbrel deal.
We could have gotten "at least" two good prospects in the Simmons deal.
That's 6-7 good prospects. Imagine 6-7 more Riley or Touki types to our farm!!
So...we still are doing just fine...BUT...we could have something even better if a few trades were handled differently.
I would not call the HO trade a wash.. I will always say it was a bad trade.. If we flip Kemp for something or just able to dump his contract, I will say Coppy did a good job covering his mistake. Yes Wood and Jose are mediocre right now.. but they are still in the league and can produce. HO was scum who was a terrible ball player. That deal is what gets people fired..
I disagree..
Kimbrell deal was good. We traded our closer prior to the market going ape **** on Relief pitchers. I think we did just fine in the Craig deal
I also don't think we could have gotten much more in the Simmons deal. Simmons is a special player but not the best all around short stop. There are a lot of great SS around the league and a lot that are coming up. The market for SS needs is very thin.
We could have gotten a lot more than HO..
could haves are fun, but that doesn't make them true.
Dickey is better than Wood right now. My point is not that it was a good deal, just that in hindsight we didn't really lose anything of consequence, so it's not really that bad a deal.
In a perfect scenario where all our evaluations are correct and all of our moves are ideal, sure. I'm not going to say that everything we've done has been perfect. But I would definitely say we've done a good job of turning a major league roster without much value left on their current deals and no minor league system to speak of into an extremely good system and promise at the big league level.
I would say our FO has to get at least a solid B+ to an A. Giving them a C+ is just asinine.
You don't get fired for giving up Alex Wood and Jose Peraza. You just don't. It was a bad deal. It was not a disaster that will hold us back.
remove the names. a team that gives up a 24 LHP that was ~3.5 ERA career and on season.. plus the teams #1 to 2ish prospect for a 30 year old Cuban with no MLB experience and injury history. yeah, that can get you fired. I didn't say Copi needed to be fired.. but that was Dave Stewart kind of dumb..
It absolutely was not Dave Stewart level dumb. That is hyperbole. Peraza was a decent prospect that was #1-2 in our system because our system was trash. And Wood was really good for us, but the injury concerns were an issue. And the value of both has gone down from the time of the trade. I hated the deal at the time it was made because I inflated the value of Wood and Peraza. Looking back, I'm not that concerned with it. Not a good deal, and we were completely wrong on Olivera, but it's not a killer.
Dickey hasn't had a FIP under 4 in 4 years. I would take Wood even if he gives me less innings.
Peraza was Baseball America #26 prospect at the time of the trade. Wood wasn't even in arby yet. That has a lot of value. They incorrectly valued HO because he had a super team friendly contract. If he proved to be a 2-3 WAR player then that is a spectacular deal for the Braves. It became real clear really fast that this would not be the case.
The Dodgers turned around and traded Peraza in a package, and the best thing they got back in return was Montas, who was barely in the top 100. It's pretty clear Peraza's value wasn't truly that of a typical top-30 prospect. BA may have had him there, but his value had dipped by the time we dealt him. He was a 2B with limited offense. Shortly after the trade, they ranked him #66. He was a flawed prospect, and his major league results so far have been even worse than his prospect status.
When you say we could have...what is that based off of?
Natural Immunity Croc
I agree that is status fell quickly after the trade. Still Perza and Wood for a complete unknown is very very poor. The Braves gambled and lost. Still had the mindset of trying to compete when they should be rebuilding.
Or you could look at it like giving up a pitcher who had decreasing velicity and talks of going to the pen since he was drafted as well as a slap hitting mif that is most likely a utility player for one of the best players from Cuba that scouts projected to be a middle of the order hitter.
We traded Wood and Perza hoping HO would be a regular with a cheap salary. It was a win now move and not a rebuilding move.
The fact we shouldn't have used Kimbreal to clear Melvins salary. That is not a rebuilding move.
The Simmons deal wasn't as bad but it hasn't turned out good so far. In a perfect world Newcomb progressed and is close to getting a starting job and the SS we got would have played to career levels and could have flipped him in July or got a trade pick for him.
They had the mindset of getting a valuable asset. Age is irrelevant in that discussion. Braves are not shy about trading non core pieces
But he is presuming something was available aside from what the braves got. Just curious what he may know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote