Pitching Surplus?

[Tapate50]

So, just a few months ago there was a pitching surplus, and people were bashing us for taking pitchers back in trades. As of right now, there isn't any available without a huge price tag attached. So, what gives?

[nsacpi]

With respect to all of the major leagues, I think this year is a bit due to the fact that so many contending teams have pitching issues.

With respect to the Braves specifically (and here I'm referencing the entire system both major and minor leagues), I argued a few months ago we did not have a surplus. Given the way we drafted, I no longer hold that view.

[yeezus]

I never bought into hitting being more valuable than pitching. Just the fact that so many pitchers go down throughout the season increases the value of any healthy one. teams always end up using a ton of pitchers. i think we will be set up nicely.

[Horsehide Harry]

So, just a few months ago there was a pitching surplus, and people were bashing us for taking pitchers back in trades. As of right now, there isn't any available without a huge price tag attached. So, what gives?

My issue hasn't so much been the pitching received in return but the almost complete lack of attention paid to the bats needed in the rebuild. I feel a "little" better now that Swanson was acquired but still see huge holes where power and production are concerned.

[clvclv]

There has never nor will ever be a such thing as a pitching surplus - for anyone.

[smootness]

My issue hasn't so much been the pitching received in return but the almost complete lack of attention paid to the bats needed in the rebuild. I feel a "little" better now that Swanson was acquired but still see huge holes where power and production are concerned.

I think that is due to a few things:

1. We want to build a long-term winner, and we believe that foundation comes from having a pipeline of pitching.
2. We believe that it is necessary to have a surplus of talented pitching due to the attrition involved.
3. It is hard to pry really promising young hitters from other teams, so you usually have to overpay for them.
4. Teams seem more willing to part with really young pitching, esp. those with issues or injuries, due to the attrition involved.
5. We believe that if we get enough high-ceiling pitching, we can both build a very good long-term rotation while developing enough others to trade them for hitting at some point. This is the most controversial opinion among the fan base, but pitching does seem to transition from not as valuable at 18-20 to suddenly very valuable once developed to the point of being ready to pitch well at the major league level.

I don't think it's a matter of not paying attention to bats. It's just that it's really hard to get bats in trades, especially trades for rentals. Teams are going to be more willing to part with a 19-year-old pitcher who needs development than a guy they project as a potential middle-of-the-order bat.

I think we got the best value we could get, and our plan is simply to stock the farm system with as much talent and value as possible, then figure out exactly what to do with it all as we go. It just so happens that the talent and value in pitching we could get was better than what we could get in bats.

[smootness]

There has never nor will ever be a such thing as a pitching surplus - for anyone.

Well, that's just objectively untrue.

[clvclv]

Well, that's just objectively untrue.

Provide an example.

[Horsehide Harry]

I think that is due to a few things:

1. We want to build a long-term winner, and we believe that foundation comes from having a pipeline of pitching.
2. We believe that it is necessary to have a surplus of talented pitching due to the attrition involved.
3. It is hard to pry really promising young hitters from other teams, so you usually have to overpay for them.
4. Teams seem more willing to part with really young pitching, esp. those with issues or injuries, due to the attrition involved.
5. We believe that if we get enough high-ceiling pitching, we can both build a very good long-term rotation while developing enough others to trade them for hitting at some point. This is the most controversial opinion among the fan base, but pitching does seem to transition from not as valuable at 18-20 to suddenly very valuable once developed to the point of being ready to pitch well at the major league level.

I don't think it's a matter of not paying attention to bats. It's just that it's really hard to get bats in trades, especially trades for rentals. Teams are going to be more willing to part with a 19-year-old pitcher who needs development than a guy they project as a potential middle-of-the-order bat.

I think we got the best value we could get, and our plan is simply to stock the farm system with as much talent and value as possible, then figure out exactly what to do with it all as we go. It just so happens that the talent and value in pitching we could get was better than what we could get in bats.

Other teams have found a way to get bats in return. San Diego with Kimbrel. Milwaukee with Fiers. Will Meyers has been traded several times. The Braves got Swanson. That's just off the top of my head.

To me, it's a matter of focus and the Braves have been focused on pitching and they have got it. Now, they need to address the hitting side (more).

[smootness]

Provide an example.

A team has 15 good major league starting pitchers.

[smootness]

Other teams have found a way to get bats in return. San Diego with Kimbrel. Milwaukee with Fiers. Will Meyers has been traded several times. The Braves got Swanson. That's just off the top of my head.

To me, it's a matter of focus and the Braves have been focused on pitching and they have got it. Now, they need to address the hitting side (more).

But you're acting as though all trades are the same. We were able to get Swanson for two reasons: 1) The D-Backs are stupid; and 2) We traded a good young pitcher with several years of control. (That deal also runs counter to the narrative that we target pitching too much and/or can't trade pitching for hitting, we trading short-term hitting for long-term pitching...for long-term hitting).

The other trades we made were not similar trades. We were trading either spare parts or guys with 1 year of control left. We did target hitting in the Upton deal, and if anything, that deal highlights my point. The best value we were able to get was pitching and only because he came with injury issues. The hitting we were able to get was lesser guys, though it has worked out for us fairly well so far. As mentioned before, we targeted pitching for Heyward but obviously wanted to ultimately get hitting because we flipped Miller for hitters later.

The Kimbrel and Simmons deals are the only ones where I can see someone arguing that we could have targeted hitting more, but the individual circumstances of those trades have to be taken into account. We found a team who wanted Simmons, and that team had no hitting prospects worth anything. So instead we got a very high-ceiling pitcher. If Newcomb progresses, we could absolutely flip him for better quality bats than we could have gotten for Simmons last year. And we did ultimately come out with Riley in the Kimbrel deal, and also flipped Paroubeck for some international money that we used to sign hitters. Maybe we could have gotten better hitting somewhere else, I don't know. The Padres did well when they traded him later. The Red Sox FO was different at that point that when we traded Kimbrel, so it's unlikely we could have sent him there for the same package when we did. Everyone agreed we did well in that trade when it happened; the fact that Boston later overpaid doesn't have any bearing on it.

You mention Fiers but forget to mention that the Brewers also gave up a good major league hitter in that deal, and it was a deadline deal. Myers keeps being traded in part because he can't really play the OF, which gives him virtually no value for us.

I'm not saying hitting isn't available at all, I'm just saying that it's not easy to get it and is usually valued higher than pitching that isn't close to major-league ready. You said 'other teams' have found a way to get bats, then mentioned the Braves as one of the 4 teams who have done it. I just don't see how we're 'not paying attention' to bats. We're getting the best value we can get, and the plan is to ultimately do with that value what is necessary to have a well-rounded team.

[blueagleace1]

In reference to the front office not acquiring hitters in the said deals, I believe they knew (and did) they were going to be signing multiple bats (some with very high upside) during the international signing period, therefore they concentrated on pitchers in trades knowing they were getting bats later on. Just another possible reasoning..

[Horsehide Harry]

But you're acting as though all trades are the same. We were able to get Swanson for two reasons: 1) The D-Backs are stupid; and 2) We traded a good young pitcher with several years of control. (That deal also runs counter to the narrative that we target pitching too much and/or can't trade pitching for hitting, we trading short-term hitting for long-term pitching...for long-term hitting).

The other trades we made were not similar trades. We were trading either spare parts or guys with 1 year of control left. We did target hitting in the Upton deal, and if anything, that deal highlights my point. The best value we were able to get was pitching and only because he came with injury issues. The hitting we were able to get was lesser guys, though it has worked out for us fairly well so far. As mentioned before, we targeted pitching for Heyward but obviously wanted to ultimately get hitting because we flipped Miller for hitters later.

The Kimbrel and Simmons deals are the only ones where I can see someone arguing that we could have targeted hitting more, but the individual circumstances of those trades have to be taken into account. We found a team who wanted Simmons, and that team had no hitting prospects worth anything. So instead we got a very high-ceiling pitcher. If Newcomb progresses, we could absolutely flip him for better quality bats than we could have gotten for Simmons last year. And we did ultimately come out with Riley in the Kimbrel deal, and also flipped Paroubeck for some international money that we used to sign hitters. Maybe we could have gotten better hitting somewhere else, I don't know. The Padres did well when they traded him later. The Red Sox FO was different at that point that when we traded Kimbrel, so it's unlikely we could have sent him there for the same package when we did. Everyone agreed we did well in that trade when it happened; the fact that Boston later overpaid doesn't have any bearing on it.

You mention Fiers but forget to mention that the Brewers also gave up a good major league hitter in that deal, and it was a deadline deal. Myers keeps being traded in part because he can't really play the OF, which gives him virtually no value for us.

I'm not saying hitting isn't available at all, I'm just saying that it's not easy to get it and is usually valued higher than pitching that isn't close to major-league ready. You said 'other teams' have found a way to get bats, then mentioned the Braves as one of the 4 teams who have done it. I just don't see how we're 'not paying attention' to bats. We're getting the best value we can get, and the plan is to ultimately do with that value what is necessary to have a well-rounded team.

I guess I should be more clear. Regarding the deals that WERE made, it didn't appear that the Braves were targeting controllable power bats early. I could be wrong because I don't know what was asked or offered in all deals. But other teams asked for hitting and got it. Specifically, the Milwaukee deal is an example. Yes the sent a ML OF to Houston (one who would have been traded to NY Mets if he had passed his physical). But, could the Braves have put together a better package around Wood?

I guess my biggest beef is that they don't seem to be in any big hurry to address hitting now for the future. Now that they have an opportunity to turn Teheran into multiple bats (in theory) it appears that they've gotten cold feet. My fear is that they are going to spend all this time putting together the Rolls Royce of pitching, then paint it camo and put flat tires on it and say, well "it is a Rolls Royce."

[Horsehide Harry]

In reference to the front office not acquiring hitters in the said deals, I believe they knew (and did) they were going to be signing multiple bats (some with very high upside) during the international signing period, therefore they concentrated on pitchers in trades knowing they were getting bats later on. Just another possible reasoning..

I'm glad they signed a big International class. That's good news. But the best of those guys is 4 years away. The majority are 6.

[Pugfan]

There has never nor will ever be a such thing as a pitching surplus - for anyone.

Plus, the average starters era in the National league is a pathetic 4.22 and 4.50 in the AL. 2 years ago It was 3.74 NL and 3.92 for the AL. So, starter pitching has been trash this year in both leagues.

[cajunrevenge]

A team has 15 good major league starting pitchers.

And you think theres a greater than 0% chance that the Braves will ever have 15 good major league starting pitchers?

[smootness]

I guess I should be more clear. Regarding the deals that WERE made, it didn't appear that the Braves were targeting controllable power bats early. I could be wrong because I don't know what was asked or offered in all deals. But other teams asked for hitting and got it. Specifically, the Milwaukee deal is an example. Yes the sent a ML OF to Houston (one who would have been traded to NY Mets if he had passed his physical). But, could the Braves have put together a better package around Wood?

I guess my biggest beef is that they don't seem to be in any big hurry to address hitting now for the future. Now that they have an opportunity to turn Teheran into multiple bats (in theory) it appears that they've gotten cold feet. My fear is that they are going to spend all this time putting together the Rolls Royce of pitching, then paint it camo and put flat tires on it and say, well "it is a Rolls Royce."

I think they're keeping Teheran because they realized they're not going to get what they feel he's worth, not because they just want to stockpile pitching.

[smootness]

And you think theres a greater than 0% chance that the Braves will ever have 15 good major league starting pitchers?

It was an extreme example used to illustrate that it is possible to have a surplus of pitching.

[Horsehide Harry]

I think they're keeping Teheran because they realized they're not going to get what they feel he's worth, not because they just want to stockpile pitching.

If they can't get what he's worth then they aren't trying hard enough. Playing hard to get is a good way to play your hand unless you over play your hand.

[smootness]

If they can't get what he's worth then they aren't trying hard enough. Playing hard to get is a good way to play your hand unless you over play your hand.

I said that they can't get what they feel he's worth. If they think he's a borderline ace and no one will pay that price, don't trade him.