I know it is Bleacher Report, but I am curious to see if you like the two trade ideas that involve the Braves.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...nd-speculation
I know it is Bleacher Report, but I am curious to see if you like the two trade ideas that involve the Braves.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...nd-speculation
all day every day on the Oakland deal. it will probably happen.. just Oak is going to hold out longer to make that PTBNL a bit better.Originally Posted by Coach_Chris
not so much on the JT trade. I would want a legit prospect.. not two fringy hitters a high pick pitcher who hasn't lived up yet.
The Oakland deal makes so much sense for us, I just wonder if they would really be willing to give up the 37th pick to get out of basically $15-17 million? I guess we'll see. Especially a team like Oakland who needs picks to have cost-controlled players in their system.
I'm fine with the Boston deal, it seems fair for both sides. But I do think either at the deadline or in the offseason that we should be able to get a deal that leans in our favor since Julio is probably one of the best pitchers available for trade.
The Butler trade is "fair" with a zero discount value.
But
1) We are giving up quite a bit in 2017 for returns in the more distant future
2) I would prefer to win deals rather than break even in terms of expected value. Especially ones that require a negative discount factor to work from our perspective.
Braves1976 (05-10-2016)
what do you mean?
I think Julio gets traded at the deadline. With the Stras deal taking away the best pitcher that was up for FA this winter, Teheran's value will be enormous. But I wouldn't trade him for that proposal. I want quality over quantity.
The expected surplus value of a pick in that range is about 2 WAR or 15M in today's market. If we trade for Butler midseason we are effectively paying the A's 15M for the draft pick. This is what I mean by fair.
The discount factor has to do with we are picking up the tab in 2016 and 2017 for some benefit that accrues in the more distant future.
Braves1976 (05-10-2016)
I think the Oakland trade makes some sense as long as the Braves are willing to move Freeman. Butler gives you a bridge at 1B in 2017 for whatever 1B you acquire in trade.
I hate, HATE the Boston trade. It looks like a trade a Boston fan would put together. Four useless pieces (for the Braves) for a pretty serviceable #2/#3 who's signed to a good contract long term. Swihart is at best an offensive catcher along the lines of Saltalamacchia. Chavis is a guy who likely doesn't have a position. Longhi is a throw in with no upside. Ball is the LH version of Casey Kelley, a once highly touted prospect who's lost their fastball and is having to re-invent themselves as a soft tossing garbage guy.
For me, I would want CF Benintendi, 3B Luis Basabe, RHP Pat Light and OF Josh Ockimey. At least you get a guy in Benintendi who is a "pencil in" starter for 2018. Light profiles as a useful reliever. Basabe is a high ceiling switch hitting 3B who is probably 3-4 years away and Ockimey is a power first base guy whose on the come.
I think the value is there on the Teheran deal, but I don't like it. If we can't get a team to overpay a little, I'd be fine with keeping Julio.
We aren't getting Benintendi for Teheran. Boston might be hard pressed to deal him for Freeman, let alone Teheran.
But, if you are willing and intend to trade Freeman, then it makes more sense with Butler standing at 1B in 2017, not just as a write off. I know Coppy has continued to say he's not moving Freeman which concerns me since no one should be off limits in a rebuild given the right return. But Freeman's physical peak years are being wasted on a very poor run of Atlanta teams and he's the most valuable trade chip the Braves have assuming he shows he's healthy and that he can still hit for enough power and average. Freeman also becomes expensive and will likely at least be entering his decline years when the Braves can realistically be expected to become relevant again.
We really are in a position to play hard to get here and win any trade for Teheran. If it is a fair trade I'm not interested. By "win" I mean that the expected surplus value has to be 8 WAR or more. I value Teheran's expected surplus value on his current deal at 6 WAR.
But again, we are trading from a surplus (money) for a need (draft).. I know the #37 may only be worth 2 WAR, but with what the Braves are probably wanting to do, it would be worth much more. That pick adds almost 2 million into our bonus pool. And puts us with the most bonus slot money in the Draft at 14 million. If Groom falls to #3, we could sign him and still over slot #37 and #40 while still getting value at #44.. Simple $$/WAR doesn't fit this trade..
rico43 (05-11-2016)
Then I wouldn't do the deal with them. I'm all for trading Teheran. But, I see no reason to move him for a few plug penny's and a magic bean or two. He's the one guy for me who would have to be in the deal. The others I want but could do without.
Butler is Nick Swisher II. We could have used Nick the Swish as our bridge to nowhere in 2016. The case for trading Freeman does not really turn on whether we have a bridge to nowhere type of player to play first. You can pick someone like that off the waiver wire anytime.
Depends on how you view 2017. I'm happy to apply a discount to 2016 funds. Much less so to next year, when I think we can field a .500 team.
Braves1976 (05-10-2016)
I don't think Butler damages our 2017. I don't think we are going to be huge spenders there anyway. We can field a .500 team with our without his contract.
It doesn't but having Butler (or Swisher in 2016) precludes the team from needing to go find someone to stand at 1B until your real future 1B is ready. that means that what you are paying Butler is at least somewhat useful in the short term and isn't a straight write off.
For example, if the Braves had traded Freeman this past offseason, as they probably should have, then they were already prepared to have Swisher stand at first this season while your future 1B continues his learning curve - you were paying Swisher anyway, there was no need to go get a guy like Morneau or anyone else.
I completely agree on JT.. he has to get max value in return.. if not, keep him.. We are going to need at least one veteran starter in 2017. No way we can go into new park depending on Blair/Wisler/Folty plus two other 1st year starters out of the group of Gant/Sims/Jenkins/Ellis.. I know we could still resign Chacin and maybe depend on Perez or Weber (depending on if they are still around then).. But we are going to have to pay for a FA pitcher and us giving away JT is pointless..
I think there are better ways to spend 10M than on a negative WAR player.
Braves1976 (05-10-2016)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote