2017 and the State of the Farm System

[nsacpi]

Our best prospect is in Low A. We have a very exciting group of very young players in the GCL and to a lesser extent the DSL.

The guys closer to being major league ready pale in comparison to what we have in the lower levels of the farm system.

This raises several questions given the stated goal of having a strong dynamic contending team in 2017.

1) How willing should we be to use as trade chips what we currently have in Rome, the GCL and the DSL to accelerate our ability to put together a strong ML team by 2017.

2) Should we scale back our ambitions for 2017 and be satisfied with just having a competitive team, with the understanding that there are some great reinforcements on the way that might not quite be ready by 2017.

3) To what extent should our acquisition of ML ready talent and the financial commitments we make to ML talent over the next two years be influenced by what is coming up the pipeline.

[Krovahn]

I think we have a guy named Jake down on the State Farm. He seems promising.

[rico43]

I think we have a half season and a winter league season for many of these younger players to mature a little more. Then there's always the injury bug. No need to rush this now.

[smootness]

1) Willing to an extent, but we should be vary wary of doing it. Rookie and A ball is generally not the time to get great value for prospects, especially those with the most upside. You'd have to package several to get anything of substance, so the value just isn't there.

2) Yes. 2017 should be (and I think it is) viewed as 'Year 1,' not 'The Year'. We should be looking at that year as our 1991, IOW. We should not be making short-term deals trying to be as good as possible in 2017. We should make moves here and there if it makes sense, but always with an eye on the future as well. If we can trade a prospect for a long-term major league option, fine. But if our options are selling the farm to be good in 2017 or waiting and not being great immediately in the new stadium, we should choose the latter.

3) A pretty large extent. In other words, if after next year Davidson has hit well, added more power, and ended the year performing well in LF at AA, don't go spend on a LF for the major league team.

[Chico]

I think we'll use the offseason to start being competitive next year. We're not going to wait for the 2016-2017 offseason to overhaul the team. That never works. Also from a marketing standpoint the team needs to be on the upswing to sell more season tickets and suites in 2017, which is what it's ultimately about.

We can do a hybrid of taking on players that are short term, but can be flipped if a prospect under them proves he is ready. For instance we trade for a LF and a OF prospect this offseason. Plug the LF in there until the prospect is ready then flip that older player for more prospects.

[nsacpi]

1) Willing to an extent, but we should be vary wary of doing it. Rookie and A ball is generally not the time to get great value for prospects, especially those with the most upside. You'd have to package several to get anything of substance, so the value just isn't there.

2) Yes. 2017 should be (and I think it is) viewed as 'Year 1,' not 'The Year'. We should be looking at that year as our 1991, IOW. We should not be making short-term deals trying to be as good as possible in 2017. We should make moves here and there if it makes sense, but always with an eye on the future as well. If we can trade a prospect for a long-term major league option, fine. But if our options are selling the farm to be good in 2017 or waiting and not being great immediately in the new stadium, we should choose the latter.

3) A pretty large extent. In other words, if after next year Davidson has hot well, added more power, and ended the year performing well in LF at AA, don't go spend on a LF for the major league team.

Wow. We are in full agreement here. With the caveat that I have no idea what Davidson has hot well means. It sounds awesome whatever it is!

[Tapate50]

You can't really make these calls right now, in a vacuum for 2017. This team will look very different after this offseason and after next.

Everything needs to be evaluated as it comes really.

[smootness]

Wow. We are in full agreement here. With the caveat that I have no idea what Davidson has hot well means. It sounds awesome whatever it is!

Haha, fixed.

[sturg33]

We need to be looking at ways to make our team better for 2017 now... not in the 2016 offseason. For example, if Puig was available, I'd go try to get him. I'd happily part with one of our young pitchers (Teheran) for him.

We need bats

[nsacpi]

You can't really make these calls right now, in a vacuum for 2017. This team will look very different after this offseason and after next.

Everything needs to be evaluated as it comes really.

Sure you constantly need to update your evaluations. I would not even have raised these questions a few weeks ago. But what is happening in the GCL and so a lesser extent the DSL should not be ignored.

[nsacpi]

We need to be looking at ways to make our team better for 2017 now... not in the 2016 offseason. For example, if Puig was available, I'd go try to get him. I'd happily part with one of our young pitchers (Teheran) for him.

We need bats

Puig for Teheran doesn't have the element of borrowing from the lower levels of the farm system for 2017 I was referring to. It is a swap of a couple guys who are established major leaguers.

[Horsehide Harry]

Our best prospect is in Low A. We have a very exciting group of very young players in the GCL and to a lesser extent the DSL.

The guys closer to being major league ready pale in comparison to what we have in the lower levels of the farm system.

This raises several questions given the stated goal of having a strong dynamic contending team in 2017.

1) How willing should we be to use as trade chips what we currently have in Rome, the GCL and the DSL to accelerate our ability to put together a strong ML team by 2017.

2) Should we scale back our ambitions for 2017 and be satisfied with just having a competitive team, with the understanding that there are some great reinforcements on the way that might not quite be ready by 2017.

3) To what extent should our acquisition of ML ready talent and the financial commitments we make to ML talent over the next two years be influenced by what is coming up the pipeline.

At the risk of becoming overly repetitive (maybe too late for that), your points are why I say the Braves HAVE to trade from the current ML team to achieve the desired results. Your point is correct. There is no quick fix talent for the every day position holes waiting in the high minors. The complete belly-flop of Ruiz this year has hurt the third base fix. Peraza and most others in the high minors are either blocked or not good enough.

That's why I say trade Miller, Wood and/or Teheran for quality ml bats who are either near term fixes for existing holes or have enough high end ability that you would be willing to wait for them. An example of my thinking if the trade were made now would be Wood and JJ to Toronto for CF Dalton Pompey, C Max Pentecost and OF DJ Davis. That's one near ready ML OF and one long term (currently injured) option for the catcher hole on one high ceiling, underperforming, OF prospect.

I would do the same by trading Miller and/or Teheran, Simmons and Maybin and adding as many high end bats as I could get back, preferably OF with power, 3B with power, C.

Then this offseason, I have between $50M and $60M to sign FA so I add at least one TOR starter like Price and one more pitcher, preferably a high end guy as well but would take a lower guy like a Latos at a smaller cost.

I would also continue the strategy of taking on contracts from other teams with money available IF it brought talent along with it similar to what was done with Arizona. For instance, I would take Garza from the Brewers if he came with a prospect like SS Gilbert Lara, who is a ways off but with a high upside.

Under this scenario, the Braves keep the young, cheap controllable talent, add high end veteran pitching through FA, also add high end hitting prospects with some being close enough to contribute right away or at least by 2017.

[Russ2dollas]

I think we are going to make big moves in the offseason. I think we'll make at least 1 big trade and 1 big FA signing.

Holes at LF, 3B, C and potentially SP if we deal one of our big 3. I don't know if we'll address all of those areas in one offseason but I think we'll try.

I'm just not sure that other teams have young, controllable power bats that they are willing to flip for pitching. I hope they do, but I don't think it's obvious.

I've said in many posts that I expect us to approach Wood and Miller regarding extensions this offseason. Depending on how that goes, I think it's likely we trade one. If we don't extend Wood this offseason then it seems like a sign that the braves either won't meet his price or that they have concerns about him long term (1 TJ already and delivery). If that's the case then you see if Wood with years of control can net you a big time bat......again not sure it does.

It takes two to tango.

[nsacpi]

I'm just not sure that other teams have young, controllable power bats that they are willing to flip for pitching. I hope they do, but I don't think it's obvious.

Yup. Not obvious at all. But maybe some team will cast their eyes upon Jenkins or Toussaint and fall in love and send young cost controlled bats our way. You never know.

[Chico]

I think we are going to make big moves in the offseason. I think we'll make at least 1 big trade and 1 big FA signing.

Holes at LF, 3B, C and potentially SP if we deal one of our big 3. I don't know if we'll address all of those areas in one offseason but I think we'll try.

I'm just not sure that other teams have young, controllable power bats that they are willing to flip for pitching. I hope they do, but I don't think it's obvious.

I've said in many posts that I expect us to approach Wood and Miller regarding extensions this offseason. Depending on how that goes, I think it's likely we trade one. If we don't extend Wood this offseason then it seems like a sign that the braves either won't meet his price or that they have concerns about him long term (1 TJ already and delivery). If that's the case then you see if Wood with years of control can net you a big time bat......again not sure it does.

It takes two to tango.

I agree with this, but I think we keep Miller and trade Wood and Teheran. Miller has big game pitcher written on him, and we should lock him up.

[clvclv]

Puig for Teheran doesn't have the element of borrowing from the lower levels of the farm system for 2017 I was referring to. It is a swap of a couple guys who are established major leaguers.

You expected a better answer???

[sturg33]

You expected a better answer???

Sorry... meant we should trade Wood for Wieters

[yeezus]

Sorry... meant we should trade Wood for Wieters

Wow, I wouldn't want to do that at all.

[sturg33]

Wow, I wouldn't want to do that at all.

I wouldn't either, but the smartest poster on the board apparently would

[yeezus]

I wouldn't either, but the smartest poster on the board apparently would

...I just said I wouldn't....