Scrubbed Deal With The Yankees

[clvclv]

Surprised no one's mentioned the tidbit on MLBTR last night...

Heyward, Simba, David Carpenter, B. J./Melvin, and CJ for Severino, Judge, Banuelos, Gary Sanchea, and Ian Clarkin



Now THAT would've been a blockbuster!!!

It would've made things awfully interesting since it would've changed so many deals and potentially led to a J-Up re-signing. Our second half lineup this season would probably look like...

CF- Mallex, SS- Albies, LF- J-Up, 1B- Freeman, RF- Judge, 3B- ??? (maybe KJ), C- Sanchez, 2B- Peterson

Rotation- Teheran, Severino, Wood, Folty, Sims

Pen- Kimbrel, Grilli, Simmons, ???


Interesting to say the least.

[yeezus]

Was mentioned a couple of times on "Around the league."
It's tough to compare the returns we ended up with vs. what we would've had in that deal due to all the moving parts. But definitely would've been crazy. The Yankees still wouldn't have had the pitching last year, so smart not to do it.

[UNCBlue012]

I think the Yanks probably wanted some sort of addition into the deal for pitching, actually.

We would of had a lot of great talent, but I personally like where we are now.

[cajunrevenge]

Would have loved that deal if we were not paying any money to the Yankees.

[smootness]

I think the Yanks probably wanted some sort of addition into the deal for pitching, actually.

We would of had a lot of great talent, but I personally like where we are now.

Agreed. We turned Heyward and Simmons into Inciarte, Swanson, Newcomb, Blair, Aybar, Jenkins, Ellis, and a year of Shelby Miller. I'll honestly take that group over the Yankees group.

[50PoundHead]

Agreed. We turned Heyward and Simmons into Inciarte, Swanson, Newcomb, Blair, Aybar, Jenkins, Ellis, and a year of Shelby Miller. I'll honestly take that group over the Yankees group.

I always wonder if you get more value out of a blockbuster or in a series of separate deals. My fear about the blockbuster here is that we would have looked like a tweener team that would have had some holes and not enough budget to fill them. Kind of in the competitive netherworld. I haven't liked every move and there's still so much left to chance because we don't know how a lot of the guys we acquired will develop (if they develop at all), but I think that there is now a blueprint in place and we have a team that can grow together.

[clvclv]

I always wonder if you get more value out of a blockbuster or in a series of separate deals. My fear about the blockbuster here is that we would have looked like a tweener team that would have had some holes and not enough budget to fill them. Kind of in the competitive netherworld. I haven't liked every move and there's still so much left to chance because we don't know how a lot of the guys we acquired will develop (if they develop at all), but I think that there is now a blueprint in place and we have a team that can grow together.

Kind of where we were when this all first started???

While I think I prefer where we are now, I can't say I wouldn't have possibly preferred to make that Yankees deal and then maybe try to spin off J-Up and Kimbrel in other deals. I think you could make the argument that we'd have gotten the same long-term pieces back from San Diego (Wisler, Fried, and Mallex) in a deal for EITHER Justin or Kimbrel if they wouldn't have had to eat B. J./Melvin's money in a deal. If that were the case and you could've traded Kimbrel for the three of them, you'd really have been in a position to extend J-Up and sign one of the second-tier SPs (Samardzija/Leake/Kennedy/Fister) and have been "a contender" like we'd been - pretty good, but certainly not the favorites by any stretch.

A rotation of Teheran/Severino/Wood/FA/??? would definitely be enough to at least keep you "relevant" for awhile with J-Up and Judge sandwiched around Freeman.

Again, that's kinda where we were to begin with - and it'd still be an uphill climb against teams with two "Aces" come playoff time IMO.

[Knucksie]

Who scotched the deal?

[Chico]

I'm glad it fell through.

[Braves1976]

Kind of where we were when this all first started???

While I think I prefer where we are now, I can't say I wouldn't have possibly preferred to make that Yankees deal and then maybe try to spin off J-Up and Kimbrel in other deals. I think you could make the argument that we'd have gotten the same long-term pieces back from San Diego (Wisler, Fried, and Mallex) in a deal for EITHER Justin or Kimbrel if they wouldn't have had to eat B. J./Melvin's money in a deal. If that were the case and you could've traded Kimbrel for the three of them, you'd really have been in a position to extend J-Up and sign one of the second-tier SPs (Samardzija/Leake/Kennedy/Fister) and have been "a contender" like we'd been - pretty good, but certainly not the favorites by any stretch.

A rotation of Teheran/Severino/Wood/FA/??? would definitely be enough to at least keep you "relevant" for awhile with J-Up and Judge sandwiched around Freeman.

Again, that's kinda where we were to begin with - and it'd still be an uphill climb against teams with two "Aces" come playoff time IMO.

Now looking back, I am glad I didn't say a lot about the Kimbrel deal because while I was fine with it. I believed Kimbrel had a lot of value himself and hated losing much of it by tying BJ to him. This has been shown true in trades since including Kimbrel and similar closers by what they brought back in trades. Plus I wasn't then and I'm not now that high on Wisler. Further, it could also be argued that we could've traded just Simmons in a deal for Severino last year and still made the Heyward and more recent Miller trade that really set us up bringing back a solid trio in Inciarte, Blair and Swanson (last but not least of course).

[smootness]

Now looking back, I am glad I didn't say a lot about the Kimbrel deal because while I was fine with it. I believed Kimbrel had a lot of value himself and hated losing much of it by tying BJ to him. This has been shown true in trades since including Kimbrel and similar closers by what they brought back in trades. Plus I wasn't then and I'm not now that high on Wisler. Further, it could also be argued that we could've traded just Simmons in a deal for Severino last year and still made the Heyward and more recent Miller trade that really set us up bringing back a solid trio in Inciarte, Blair and Swanson (last but not least of course).

You can always take just about any deal (save one like the Miller trade) and take issue with it or suggest we might have been able to get a little more. We got a really good package for Kimbrel, even with BJ included, and it's completely within the realm of possibility that Newcomb is better than Severino 3 years from now.

Rather than looking at other teams and being upset that we perhaps could have gotten 'more,' I just like to judge the return we got and whether or not I'm ok with it. And I'm ok with the return we pulled from most of our trades.

[Braves1976]

You can always take just about any deal (save one like the Miller trade) and take issue with it or suggest we might have been able to get a little more. We got a really good package for Kimbrel, even with BJ included, and it's completely within the realm of possibility that Newcomb is better than Severino 3 years from now.

Rather than looking at other teams and being upset that we perhaps could have gotten 'more,' I just like to judge the return we got and whether or not I'm ok with it. And I'm ok with the return we pulled from most of our trades.

Bottom line: It all comes down to how we rate the players involved in said deals and the main disagreement we have is our view of the Simmons deal.

[50PoundHead]

Kind of where we were when this all first started???

While I think I prefer where we are now, I can't say I wouldn't have possibly preferred to make that Yankees deal and then maybe try to spin off J-Up and Kimbrel in other deals. I think you could make the argument that we'd have gotten the same long-term pieces back from San Diego (Wisler, Fried, and Mallex) in a deal for EITHER Justin or Kimbrel if they wouldn't have had to eat B. J./Melvin's money in a deal. If that were the case and you could've traded Kimbrel for the three of them, you'd really have been in a position to extend J-Up and sign one of the second-tier SPs (Samardzija/Leake/Kennedy/Fister) and have been "a contender" like we'd been - pretty good, but certainly not the favorites by any stretch.

A rotation of Teheran/Severino/Wood/FA/??? would definitely be enough to at least keep you "relevant" for awhile with J-Up and Judge sandwiched around Freeman.

Again, that's kinda where we were to begin with - and it'd still be an uphill climb against teams with two "Aces" come playoff time IMO.

I think we agree, but I'm not sure. Peraza would have probably been the SS under this scenario and he would have probably been okay at least as a stop-gap before sliding over to 2B at some point. And I agree we could have found a 3B to replace Chris Johnson (which should have been our strategy with him by just rolling the dice in arbitration or non-tendering him instead of inking him to a long term deal).

But we still would have been a team looking for some big step-ups from guys in order to be a top-tier team. Judge would have had to contribute immediately. It would have taken a lot to sign Justin (which would have indeed been possible). The extremely valuable Kimbrel may still have been a expensive luxury on a tweener team.

There have been a few fits-and-starts since Hart took over, but things have finally seemed to settle and all the arrows look to be pointing in the same direction. In the long run, I think we were better off making the set of smaller deals we've made.

[Runnin]

Good article about a new book on the Babe Ruth trade.