Got it. I can remember when Baseball America was so tools-driven in their analysis that they consistently gave Chuck Lamar high grades for drafting football players.Originally Posted by gilesfan
Got it. I can remember when Baseball America was so tools-driven in their analysis that they consistently gave Chuck Lamar high grades for drafting football players.
They should have traded Teheran, they shouldn't have traded Wood, and Shelby Miller is irrelevant because Dave Stewart is supposedly dumb. Annual reminder that the only successful player in the deal so far was the Diamondbacks fourth OF who has been ok for the Braves.
Basically whatever decision the Braves have made there is someone on the other side of it.
It doesn't happen in a vacumn though. 2 Years ago they traded Shelby Miller at the peak of his value because of 2 things...1) he had two very good seasons back to back and 2) JT sucked that year.
Last year they could not sell JT at his peak for two similar reasons...1) he had only had 1 good season (really a half season) and 2) Everyone else sucked (so there would be no one left). As it was, they brought in 3 geriatrics to fill the rotation. Imagine if they had brought in 4 geriatrics. Our rotation would be Dickey, Garcia, Colon, Cacin, Folty....wow we would be tanking this year also.
After last year, JT had put together good years in 3 out of the last 4 years. IN all 3 he had significantly lower ERAs than his peripheral suggest. He had a movable contract. He is exactly the type of guy you consider selling high.
Then again, I was one of a few guys that kept saying we needed to move Horacio Ramirez at the angst of an Auburn Tiger as well as many others. And he had far less success than JT.
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
Let me just rattle off the obvious ones off the top of my head where they rode their value into the dirt...
Hanson
JJ
Medlen
Minor
Beachy
Teheran
Pitchers they sold....
Wainwright
Wood
Schmidt
They have NEVER sold high on a pitcher, and they have sold low on several.
I don't see how even pozzies can defend that track record of extracting value from pitchers, yet they will defend it until they are blue in the face.
Look at how the Rays and A's extract value from pitchers...that is the model to follow.
There is nothing wrong with refusing to trade good pitchers when you are trying to contend. The Rays and As are forever locked in mediocrity so they aren't the best examples.
"Yes, I did think Aldrich was good UNTIL I SAW HIM PLAY. "- thethe
Yeah, a big part of it is definitely where your team is. I know Enscheff has said you always, always, always sell a pitcher with 2 years left no matter what your MLB team looks like, but I think that's insane. You are then always reducing the level of your current team.
So a lot of those can't be considered a mistake. Hanson? Why would we have traded him before he fell off? Same with Medlen, Minor, and Beachy.
Now Teheran? Sure, you can call that a mistake. You can certainly say we didn't get full value out of Wood, although in that case it's because we didn't hold onto him long enough and that the trade was bad, not that we waited too long.
LOL
Coppy
Not trading Julio was dumb last year but it depends what was being offered.
If any of Bene, Moncada or Devers were on the table and Coppy turned it down then that was very dumb.
The Rays and A's are great examples of FOs who really do a good job on the value side of the equation but are never fully able to build a contender. Obviously it's because they're hampered by their payroll, and that's why they have to constantly play that game, but it's true. They do a good job of continuing to field a good team despite a low payroll, and that's how they do it. But they also take the top off their teams by constantly trading their top guys.
The Rays trade their guys even quicker than the A's, but I'm not sure I want us fully following either model. Our payroll should rest comfortably above both of those teams, and I'd rather build a great team for 3-5 years and then experience a downswing than to just sit in the area below that forever.
I seriously, seriously doubt they were being offered. Maybe Devers, but certainly not the other two.
mfree80 (07-20-2017)
Well the majority of those pitchers were still cheap and young and being counted on to be major contributors during a time in which we were trying to make the playoffs every year. Your expectations are unrealistic.
I highly doubt you will see the Indians or Astros selling their young controllable pitchers anytime soon either. You sell them when they start to become expensive and you have other options that are also quality
. Hanson, JJ, Medlen, etc were all still very cheap when they got injured. Mid market teams who are trying to make the playoffs every year should NOT be selling off those assets, unless (like the Mets recently) they have a plethora of such pitchers and needs in other areas
Last edited by Carp; 07-20-2017 at 04:27 PM.
Enscheff, this is an honest question because I'm trying to figure out how these opinions jive.
You have stated we should always sell a controlled pitcher with 2 years left to maximize value, yet you have also suggested that it is fine to buy at the deadline if you are contending. If you believe it's wise to sell early to get pieces back even if you're a good, contending team, why are you also ok giving up pieces to go get a similar player at the deadline?
Shh.. don't interject logic into this debate..
Coppy
A contender should never sell at the deadline. Period.
A non-contender should look to sell any pitcher at the deadline if they have 2.3333 years or less of control remaining (like Gray now).
A contender should look to sell pitchers with 2 years of control left in the offseason (like the Rays dealt Smly).
If a pitcher with 2 years of control remaining is coming off injury, they should keep him to prove he is healthy, then trade him either at the deadline (if not contending), or in the next off season (if contending).
If a guy is coming off 2 consecutive years of injury, and the team is forced to use him in his last year of control, use him up and let him walk as a FA.
Ideally, the system will produce 1 pitcher per year. The rotation will look like this:
Rookie(s)
5 years control
4 years control
3 years control
homegrown pitcher recovering from injury
FA stop gaps should be signed to fill any holes. These FA stopgaps should be pitchers like Colon and Dickey signed to 1 year deals, maybe with an option. Never spend more on FA pitching.
The Braves superior resources should allow them to sign better FA stopgaps than the A's or Rays are capable of signing.
Guarantee no pitcher any money through his 20s if his 20s are already controlled (Folty, likely with Wright, Sims and Newk). Maintaining the ability to cut them loose at no cost is important.
Extend any promising pitcher if his 20s are not controlled, buying FA years up to and possibly including his age 30 season only (Teheran contract, likely with Soroka and Allard). Gaining control of these FA years in their late 20s is worth assuming the risk of guaranteeing seasons in their early 20s.
I think that pretty much covers all possible scenarios. Use them up, and ship them out. That's the most efficient way to handle pitching assets and maintain long term competitiveness.
Last edited by Enscheff; 07-20-2017 at 05:45 PM.
And as a result, you will see those teams go through periods of non-contention because they failed to maximize value over the long term.
Difficult to argue with the logic in this post. Well stated.
Just to pick one, when exactly was Atlanta supposed to sell high on Medlen? When he was the Ace of a playoff team with four years of control left?
You're right, the Braves are masterful at handling pitching assets.
I am interested in your answer to South's question????
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote