Would completely depend on the prospects. I wouldn't be willing to give up much. That would tie our hands financially, and I'm only really interested in Verlander and Kinsler, and they're both old.Originally Posted by cajunrevenge
Would completely depend on the prospects. I wouldn't be willing to give up much. That would tie our hands financially, and I'm only really interested in Verlander and Kinsler, and they're both old.
A move like that might make sense if the team was on the cusp or if the core of the team was old or about to be out from under team control. But, that isn't the case with the Braves.
nsacpi (10-16-2016)
agreed...guys like Verlander are too costly in terms of prospects
Keep in mind that the origin of this was that the Tigers need to dump payroll. The key is how much of Verlander's contract could a team afford to handle? A team like the Braves, which could swallow it all if needed, would not have to offer nearly as much.
But needing to dump payroll is not the same as giving away players who make a lot for free. They're looking to lessen payroll and get younger and add prospects. So they're going to be looking to get proper value in return.
They'll more than likely pay Maybin the $1m buyout than the $9M option in 2017. Upton will more than likely opt out of his contract after the 2017 season. They love Kinsler there, so I don't think he's going anywhere.
I do believe they'd love to pawn Sanchez off on someone, but that's looking like a sunk contract not just a bad one. Even if he sucks in 2017 he gets a $5M buyout and hits free agency, so there's no incentive to hope for a contract year performance from him.
i could see us picking up Sanchez...Verlander aint no way
I was able to read through this and I see there are two completely different views on the caliber of starting pitchers we're going to go after. I think most can agree we're not backing up the truck for anyone and including multiple top 10 prospects and we're not losing a pick when we have top 5 draft pool money to spread around. Otherwise it seems pretty split on the direction we're going to go. As usual it will probably be somewhere in the middle.
I think back to us going after Braun and settling for Kemp when Coppy said we needed some RH power. We weren't going after the reclamation project one year deal rh power bat.
I think we're going to go after someone substantial in the rotation and then an innings eater or reclamation project. I don't know why he'd mention this so many times if we were going to settle for scrap heap pitchers. Why even bother saying it if that was the plan? You'd just get the cheap flyers like everyone does in the offseason and see if one can work out.
JohnAdcox (10-17-2016)
Great point.. who are you thinking?
"Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon"
I have no idea...I think we'll cast a large net and see what we pull up.
A guy signed for a few years like Gray, Odorizzi, or Santana
A guy who is a pending free agent like Cobb, or Volquez
A free agent who won't have a QO like Ivan Nova or Rich Hill
The Tigers are going to be really interesting to watch IMO. While I think there's very little chance that Verlander and Miggy don't retire as Tigers, Ilitch's desire to win has backed them into a corner like the Yankees were in and Angels are in. Other than those two, they really don't have much to offer to try to help with a quick rebuild (much like the position the Braves would likely have found themselves in had Heyward and J-Up been extended if you think about it). To remain even remotely competitive, they're just going to have to spend, and as many have pointed out - there sure ain't much to spend on.
From Atlanta's perspective, taking Sanchez back would only make sense if we were getting a decent piece or two back to facilitate a salary dump (like the Touki/Arroyo deal). Why else would Coppy & Company eat that money? There are going to be options available that will be at least as good that will cost less money and NO prospects. Whether because of his injury issues or something else, he sure looks like he's washed-up to me - 59 HRs given up while half his starts have come in a big park over the last 2 years? I'd pass unless we were getting something back. Use that money for potential extensions if you don't get a better veteran rotation option.
One interesting option between the Braves and Detroit (JMO) would be a deal where we took on Sanchez' salary and included Mallex, Sims, and Markakis and got J. D. Martinez - which I can't see happening either. While Markakis wouldn't replace Martinez' pop in their lineup, he wouldn't be bad to have if they're trying to remain competitive for a couple years - and it's not like they'd be devoid of power without J. D.. Nick would actually be a pretty good fit to help balance their lineup, and hit behind Upton. That way they could just buy out Cam's option to save more money -
CF- Mallex, 2B- Kinsler, 1B- Miggy, DH- V-Mart, LF- J-Up, RF- Markakis, 3B- Castellanos, C- McCann, SS- Iglesias
Martinez' and Markakis' money is roughly a wash, but they'd save $29 million by getting rid of Cam and Sanchez and Sims would be a pretty significant addition to their terrible system. Throw significant money at Martinez to extend him, and suddenly we'd be in the hunt quickly with any consistent SP addition (or step forward by young arms) -
CF- Ender, SS- Swanson, RF- Martinez, 1B- Freeman, LF- Kemp, C- (Castro or Mac)/Flowers, 3B- Ruiz/Garcia, 2B- Peterson (Albies)
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
He pretty much admitted publicly that we're probably going after FA rather than trades, which means we're not really going after anyone substantial. Said he didn't want to give away the prospects we've worked so hard to acquire.
What else would he say though? I think there's a little posturing there. He's not going to say the free agency market sucks and we have to trade for starting pitching and start off negotiations in the hole.
I think he said something about trading 3 or 4 top prospects and how it undermines what we've done. I agree we're not going for the homerun and going after a Chris Sale. I do think we'll explore the rational trade market though.
JohnAdcox (10-18-2016)
He could absolutely say that we'll look at the trade market in addition to the FA market to identify the best options. That wouldn't give away any leverage in negotiations. But he specifically said we probably won't be looking to make a trade for a SP and that we'll look at FA instead.
I don't think that means we won't make any trade at all, but I think it likely means we're not going after anybody we would have to give up any real value in prospects for. It looks like we may not agree much, if at all, but I read your first post to be suggesting we could go after someone that would demand a legit prospect or two.
I think the debate lies here. I honestly don't know the answer. I'm reading strong opinions for both sides on what it would take to land a Sp of value. I don't think it would cost our top prospects for a decent SP and I don't think we can get Sale for 40 man roster bubble players. I believe there is a middle ground for a guy like an Odorizzi or a Santana. Their value as a place holder under contract helps us from pushing prospects and lets them develop more. There is a value in that in and of itself.
My suggestion is to go after impending free agents on 1 year deals, but I can see the value of getting a guy you can pencil in for 2 to 3 years who is already established. It's like getting a Jim Johnson as your closer. You're all for upgrading, but it's good to know you have some consistency while you keep looking and developing.
If the Braves trade for a pitcher he will be the equivalent of Kemp...an overpriced guy that can be acquired for essentially nothing with the hopes he will rebound in Atlanta. Just like Kemp did.
Santana and Odorizzi will require real prospects to acquire. I have to think that means they are not options.
My guess at the buy low trade option the Braves acquire is James Shields. The ChiSox will be looking to shed payroll, so they might give up a prospect to get the Braves to take all of Shields' contract. They owe him 2/22, which is expensive but not outrageous for an innings eater.
Last edited by Enscheff; 10-17-2016 at 09:13 PM.
I think this off-season will be conducted in a way that allows for some flexibility at the trade deadline. We'll construct a solid team that projects at about .500, and if come July we're above .500, we will be in a position to make a significant move. There are two areas where the significant move is most likely to come:
1) Third base. I'm fine with spending the first half of the year kicking the tires on Garcia and monitoring the development of Ruiz and Riley. But third strikes me as the position where we might make a big investment both for the near-term and medium-term. What we do at mid-season or next off-season depends in part on how the internal options play out and also what is available on the market. There has been some speculation about Evan Longoria and I think that's as logical a name as any.
2) While this off-season is likely to see a focus on mid-rotation type starting pitchers, I do think I some point we will make a push for someone with a higher profile. This could come mid-season or next off-season. But I think we will make a run at someone like Greinke, Sale or Hamels.
What are the assets we have as trade chips? Obviously if we go for a third baseman under multi-year control, there will be a willingness to move Garcia, Ruiz and Riley. We have four major league outfielders at the moment with Dustin Peterson likely to be ready in about a year and Acuna on the horizon. So that is another area we can potentially deal from. And the third area is the accumulation of starting pitching we have in the minors. There are two guys I'd work very hard to keep: Allard and Soroka. But any of our remaining pitching prospects could probably be had as part of a deal for a premium third baseman or premium major league starting pitcher.
Last edited by nsacpi; 10-18-2016 at 12:31 PM.
I just don't see any way we give up much of any legit talent, even at next year's trade deadline, especially a position player. We are definitely not trading away any OF.
An interesting thought about Greinke - the stumbling block with the Dodgers reacquiring him at the deadline seemed to be their unwillingness to include a high-ceiling prospect AND eat the entire contract. Given the numbers Hart and Coppy have stockpiled, I wonder if the new regime in Arizona would look for flexibility now that Stewart's gone and LaRussa's being "reassigned"? If so, would they consider Toussaint or Newcomb to be a $37.5 million prospect?
If they did and wanted one of them back for eating that much, Greinke would then be owed $135 million for the remaining five years of his deal. $27 million per wouldn't seem nearly as hard to stomach as his original deal, and would be cheaper than the present-day value of Strasburg's deal.
Not sure that's a "great deal", but it's probably one I'd be willing to roll the dice on since we'd be able to keep all the other arms.
Last edited by clvclv; 10-18-2016 at 01:51 PM.
Has there EVER been a statement and question a certain someone should absolutely never have made and asked publicly more than...
Kinda pathetic to see yourself as a message board knight in shining armor. How impotent does someone have to be in real life to resort to playing hero on a message board?
One more suggestion that Sonny Gray might be on the table: Ron Washington was Oakland's third base coach last year; he would certain offer a full scouting report that could answer all questions about his health.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote