So how do the Braves use the money that they won't be allowed to spend on Int FA

[Russ2dollas]

I’d just sign guys for 10 k. A lot of them

In Latin a erica if you don’t sign at 16 it is considered over for most of them. Take a flier on a lot of one tool guys and see if something pops up. Most wont but that’s true of most of these guys. Sign a bunch of fast guys and maybe one can hit. Get some pitchability guys and maybe one increases velocity enough or has enough deception to make it. Sign the small guys and maybe one hits a late spurt and maybe one is an Albies

Go to some of the less scouted countries. Maybe gohara matters in Brazil ����

[jpx7]

I'm all for this. Id do the same domestically. I think the future is up in the air for the NFL. Can't wait to have more Buxtons gliding around in center

The Byron Buxton whose father owns a trucking company? Odd that Buxton's situation growing up would just be presumed to have been "impoverished" ...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your presumption rested on the fact he's from rural Georgia.

[Enscheff]

The Byron Buxton whose father owns a trucking company? Odd that Buxton's situation growing up would just be presumed to have been "impoverished" ...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your presumption rested on the fact he's from rural Georgia.

I'm going to assume he meant that Buxton is an NFL caliber athlete who chose baseball.

[jpx7]

I'm going to assume he meant that Buxton is an NFL caliber athlete who chose baseball.

Even more charitable. Bravo.

[biggentleben]

Another couple data points...

Twins just got the Mariners 2017 5th round pick for $1M in pool money.

Twins just got the Angels 2017 3rd round pick for $1M in pool money.

I would say neither guy is a better prospect than Waters, who Big Ben claims is the type of prospect who can be acquired with international pool money.

Both teams are finalists for Ohtani and are trying to accumulate funds to help acquire him. This is quite possibly the most valuable international pool money will ever be.

You're lovely with reading comprehension.

Pearson and Banuelos were ranked something like the 85th and 90th in pre-draft rankings. Pearson very likely would have been much higher had he not already been 19. These are both guys who would figure in the top 50 of the Braves. That is very significant prospect value to be garnered from $2M.

I'd wager that the Angels are going to utilize the money for former Braves just as much as they are for Ohtani.

[Enscheff]

You're lovely with reading comprehension.

Pearson and Banuelos were ranked something like the 85th and 90th in pre-draft rankings. Pearson very likely would have been much higher had he not already been 19. These are both guys who would figure in the top 50 of the Braves. That is very significant prospect value to be garnered from $2M.

I'd wager that the Angels are going to utilize the money for former Braves just as much as they are for Ohtani.

This pool money is being valued highly because of Ohtani. This is likely the absolute highest value we will ever see on this money.

I was told $1M gets a prospect better than Drew Waters.

[biggentleben]

This pool money is being valued highly because of Ohtani. This is likely the absolute highest value we will ever see on this money.

I was told $1M gets a prospect better than Drew Waters.

No. You interpreted it that way. Plus, it wasn't $1M anyway....once again, reading comprehension. I know it's hard, but c'mon....

[Enscheff]

No. You interpreted it that way. Plus, it wasn't $1M anyway....once again, reading comprehension. I know it's hard, but c'mon....

"he'd rank VERY high in my personal ranks, higher than Waters for certain". He was acquired for $1M in pool space.

You've also said a team will draft Pentecost and keep him on the roster for the full season.

You've also said Odorizzi is more valuable and Archer.

We will see how much of an expert you are after these things shake out.

[jpx7]

I'd wager that the Angels are going to utilize the money for former Braves just as much as they are for Ohtani.

Is that under the assumption they fail to sign Ohtani? From what I've read, it was my understanding that Maitan's contract was in excess of their pool for this signing period, and so would be counted towards the next (as allowed under the special considerations granted for thess emancipated players). Even with this additional space from the Twins, it doesn't seem that they'd have room for both Maitan and Ohtani within the current period.

[biggentleben]

"he'd rank VERY high in my personal ranks, higher than Waters for certain". He was acquired for $1M in pool space.

You've also said a team will draft Pentecost and keep him on the roster for the full season.

You've also said Odorizzi is more valuable and Archer.

We will see how much of an expert you are after these things shake out.

The Reds received $1.25M. I said that Ventura would rank higher in my personal ranks, not that he was a better overall prospect than Waters. I then also explained why I would be still hesitant on pushing Waters up a list too high yet as he has a significant floor.

To put this in plain language (again)....

My entire point is that value can be found in pursuing guys who have not had much time to show themselves yet. A 2017 draftee is a perfect target. Ventura was a pretty significant get for the Reds because he still was young, had significant ceiling, and had shown himself at a full-season level without significant faults at that point. That's a rare profile to be offered in an IFA trade. The Braves could do well targeting guys with IFA money in trades who are still raw in their experience level. The majority of deals thus far have been for upper level prospects who have a significant flaw or a lack of ceiling because they've made it all the way to the upper minors. The White Sox acquisition of Vieira was an example of a "good" version of this, as he has a triple-digit arm, but nothing else at all and is already 24 and upper level minors.

I also said that I would personally offer more for Odorizzi than Archer, not that Odorizzi is more valuable than Archer. Those are two different things.

I've also not claimed to be an expert. However, if that's another bit of fodder you need, then go with it. Your shtick has been old since ESPN.

[biggentleben]

Is that under the assumption they fail to sign Ohtani? From what I've read, it was my understanding that Maitan's contract was in excess of their pool for this signing period, and so would be counted towards the next (as allowed under the special considerations granted for thess emancipated players). Even with this additional space from the Twins, it doesn't seem that they'd have room for both Maitan and Ohtani within the current period.

Ohtani dismissed 3 of the 4 teams with the most money. Even after acquiring the money they have, the Mariners wouldn't have cracked the top 4 pre-survey. That tells me that Ohtani is thinking of more than just money, especially since the Cubs and Dodgers can only offer 300K.

The Angels could use $1+ million on Ohtani and the rest of the 2017 money (plus 2018, where they didn't have things already set up, unlike many other teams) could be used on Braves guys (or a number of top 50 J2 guys still unsigned for a few reasons).

[Enscheff]

I also said that I would personally offer more for Odorizzi than Archer, not that Odorizzi is more valuable than Archer. Those are two different things.

I've also not claimed to be an expert. However, if that's another bit of fodder you need, then go with it. Your shtick has been old since ESPN.

Lol say what? That’s exactly what a player being more valuable means.

Since ESPN? Huh?

You constantly try to name drop and talk about all the circles you run in to suggest you are “plugged in”. We will see if you’re right.

[biggentleben]

Lol say what? That’s exactly what a player being more valuable means.

Since ESPN? Huh?

You constantly try to name drop and talk about all the circles you run in to suggest you are “plugged in”. We will see if you’re right.

No, that's not. Archer's got significant indications that he's headed toward a bad crash. Odorizzi's got plenty of indications the other direction. That said, Archer very well could be the better pitcher for the next 3-4 years, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit. I just wouldn't want to be the one betting on it is all, and certainly not on the cost being asked for him. So, while I would not be surprised at all if Archer is the more valuable pitcher, I'm not offering as much in trade to acquire him as I believe the risk he fails dramatically is much higher, and the cost to acquire him would require him to be at an ace-level.

Either you have the most coincidental name choice ever (down to the exact spelling), or you have a screen name cousin who was on ESPN's Braves board during those boards' "good" times in the late 90s-early 2000s who had a similar condescending attitude until he was banned a few too many times for his liking and left the board, still to be mocked by those who chat from that era at message boards around the interwebs.

I really don't do name dropping. I discuss talking with certain types of people, as that's part of my job, but I don't talk names. That's how someone loses any sources they want for future writing.

[BeanieAntics]

The Reds received $1.25M. I said that Ventura would rank higher in my personal ranks, not that he was a better overall prospect than Waters. I then also explained why I would be still hesitant on pushing Waters up a list too high yet as he has a significant floor.

To put this in plain language (again)....

My entire point is that value can be found in pursuing guys who have not had much time to show themselves yet. A 2017 draftee is a perfect target. Ventura was a pretty significant get for the Reds because he still was young, had significant ceiling, and had shown himself at a full-season level without significant faults at that point. That's a rare profile to be offered in an IFA trade. The Braves could do well targeting guys with IFA money in trades who are still raw in their experience level. The majority of deals thus far have been for upper level prospects who have a significant flaw or a lack of ceiling because they've made it all the way to the upper minors. The White Sox acquisition of Vieira was an example of a "good" version of this, as he has a triple-digit arm, but nothing else at all and is already 24 and upper level minors.

I also said that I would personally offer more for Odorizzi than Archer, not that Odorizzi is more valuable than Archer. Those are two different things.

I've also not claimed to be an expert. However, if that's another bit of fodder you need, then go with it. Your shtick has been old since ESPN.

To be fair, that is almost exactly what the implication is. You can say that you would offer more for Odorizzi, while still maintaining that Archer is the better player, because there are far more factors to consider other than a player's skill. But to say you would offer more for Odorizzi means that you would value Odorizzi and his situation more than Archer and his situation.

[biggentleben]

To be fair, that is almost exactly what the implication is. You can say that you would offer more for Odorizzi, while still maintaining that Archer is the better player, because there are far more factors to consider other than a player's skill. But to say you would offer more for Odorizzi means that you would value Odorizzi and his situation more than Archer and his situation.

Except that is not how the point is "measured". You understand the point I'm making completely, however, the discussion on value for most will turn to WAR or another metric to compare the two, and it's entirely feasible that Odorizzi does not out-perform there, yet others would claim a "victory" in the discussion due to that metric, rather than view what you just mentioned.

[Enscheff]

Except that is not how the point is "measured". You understand the point I'm making completely, however, the discussion on value for most will turn to WAR or another metric to compare the two, and it's entirely feasible that Odorizzi does not out-perform there, yet others would claim a "victory" in the discussion due to that metric, rather than view what you just mentioned.

That’s not what you said. You said “I would offer more for Odorizzi”.

Had you said, “Odorizzi is likely to provide positive net value compared to acquisition cost” you may have been on to something.

Considering you are an expert blogger, renowned across the interwebs, I’ll assume that’s what you meant.

I’d be willing to bet anything Archer produces more surplus value over the course of his remaining control than Odorizzi does, injury or not. Therefore, Archer is more valuable.

[Enscheff]

No, that's not. Archer's got significant indications that he's headed toward a bad crash. Odorizzi's got plenty of indications the other direction. That said, Archer very well could be the better pitcher for the next 3-4 years, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit. I just wouldn't want to be the one betting on it is all, and certainly not on the cost being asked for him. So, while I would not be surprised at all if Archer is the more valuable pitcher, I'm not offering as much in trade to acquire him as I believe the risk he fails dramatically is much higher, and the cost to acquire him would require him to be at an ace-level.

Either you have the most coincidental name choice ever (down to the exact spelling), or you have a screen name cousin who was on ESPN's Braves board during those boards' "good" times in the late 90s-early 2000s who had a similar condescending attitude until he was banned a few too many times for his liking and left the board, still to be mocked by those who chat from that era at message boards around the interwebs.

I really don't do name dropping. I discuss talking with certain types of people, as that's part of my job, but I don't talk names. That's how someone loses any sources they want for future writing.

I am 99% sure I’ve never posted at ESPN. I was too busy actually playing D1 baseball at that time to be posting on message boards. But if the mental midgets over there mock someone, I’ll take it as a good sign.

If that’s the brain pool you came from...well...never mind.

[biggentleben]

To be fair, that is almost exactly what the implication is. You can say that you would offer more for Odorizzi, while still maintaining that Archer is the better player, because there are far more factors to consider other than a player's skill. But to say you would offer more for Odorizzi means that you would value Odorizzi and his situation more than Archer and his situation.

That’s not what you said. You said “I would offer more for Odorizzi”.

Had you said, “Odorizzi is likely to provide positive net value compared to acquisition cost” you may have been on to something.

Considering you are an expert blogger, renowned across the interwebs, I’ll assume that’s what you meant.

I’d be willing to bet anything Archer produces more surplus value over the course of his remaining control than Odorizzi does, injury or not. Therefore, Archer is more valuable.

Ah, I love it when my point is made for me.

[Enscheff]

Couple more data points:

Mariners sent $1M in pool space to the Rays for Anthony Misiewicz.

Mariners sent $500k in pool space to the Indians for Shawn Armstrong.

Both guys are certainly NOT better prospects than Drew Waters.

[msstate7]

Couple more data points:

Mariners sent $1M in pool space to the Rays for Anthony Misiewicz.

Mariners sent $500k in pool space to the Indians for Shawn Armstrong.

Both guys are certainly NOT better prospects than Drew Waters.

I’m just a poor and dumb in Mississippi... help me understand why waters is significant to those deals