Page 5 of 135 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 100 of 2691

Thread: 2019 Trade Deadline Thread:

  1. #81
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    unless you don't develop any high round picks...
    Of course I'm presuming you draft reasonably well.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  2. #82
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    I think that's a reasonable strategy.

    I don't think it's the only reasonable strategy, but over infinite repetitions it probably would prove to be the most efficient approach by some likely relatively small degree, based on what the numbers seem to show.

    Even so, the context of a team's circumstances matter. Organizational need (as opposed to MLB roster need) has to factor into decision making. The Braves did not begin the rebuild in pitching equilibrium.
    True. We started the rebuild with a front office having very fresh memories of an entire generation of promising starting pitchers (Jurrjens, Hanson, Minor, Medlen, Beachy) reaching the majors but suffering from injury and other issues that prevented them from realizing their potential. So maybe there was a bit of over compensation from that. And I think they believed their own spin about the Braves Way and the Braves being a factory for developing pitchers. So they overinvested in pitching.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  4. #83
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    We are now firmly in the area that I predicted several years ago IMO of being good but with too many holes to really be great and not enough cash flexibility to buy what's needed that way.

    That leaves a likely scenario pf 2 possibilities:

    1. The Braves decide to "go for it" and open the prospect vault to trade for what is necessary to flesh out the current team as a competitor in the short term. I'm not talking about trading marginal prospects for marginal upgrades. I'm talking about significant adds that cost significant prospect capital. The Cubs took that route and won a WS but gave up a couple of high value prospects in Gleyber Torres and Eloy Jimenez to do it. They've won at a pretty good clip through their window and stand a good chance of making the playoffs again. But, even without the sanctions and money problems of the Braves, the Cubs find their farm mostly barren and their ML club getting relatively old, expensive and without a lot of significant player control. Their window is clearly closing. But I think you say it was worth it given the WS win. Without the WS win, I don't think most Cubs fans would be happy.

    or

    2. The Braves choose to hold the prospect capital and hope for enough development from within or a scrap heap trade reclamation to fill the holes well enough to get the job done. This is the Pittsburgh approach which extends a period of "good" baseball but largely precludes "great" baseball. Pittsburgh went away from that approach with the Archer trade of last year in a gamble that they apparently hoped would put them over the top. It didn't work. Their window is closed and they are headed for rebuild.

    The Braves look to have secured a reasonable window of good baseball no matter what they do, especially with the unexpected Acuna and Albies extensions. But, given the apparent payroll constraints, any significant trade improvement will come as a significant prospect capital cost which will in turn limit the flexibility of future teams and shorten the window and ability to become a great team.
    I choose the "enhanced Pittsburgh" option.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  5. #84
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Huh? I outlined a draft strategy that would involve investing far fewer high picks in pitchers than we did during the Hartcoppy years.
    But you're banking on otherworldly player evaluation/development as if thats assured?
    Natural Immunity Croc

  6. #85
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,951
    Thanked in
    1,360 Posts
    TIL Beachy is pitching in AA for the Giants, and doing quite well.
    "Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly

    “I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Super For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  8. #86
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    But you're banking on otherworldly player evaluation/development as if thats assured?
    Not really. Even with the bust rate for pitchers, it should give us 2 from the early rounds every six years and 1 from the later rounds. I think in terms of 6 year cycles because those are the years before free agency. So in the "model" I have in mind we need to generate 4 starters every six years, with the fifth starter coming in the form of an external acquisition. Plus you need to generate 2-3 more replacement level guys who can fill in as needed when there is an injury.

    Roughly you generate a top guy (4 WAR or better), 1 #2 (3 WAR), a couple mid rotation types (2 WAR) every six years. Plus some filler type guys. It is not an aggressive demand and if we are efficient with our drafting we can do it as I outlined.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  10. #87
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    True. We started the rebuild with a front office having very fresh memories of an entire generation of promising starting pitchers (Jurrjens, Hanson, Minor, Medlen, Beachy) reaching the majors but suffering from injury and other issues that prevented them from realizing their potential. So maybe there was a bit of over compensation from that. And I think they believed their own spin about the Braves Way and the Braves being a factory for developing pitchers. So they overinvested in pitching.
    I was referring to the complete lack of major league caliber starting pitching in their minor league system, but maybe some of what you said might be true and relevant somehow.

  11. #88
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    I was referring to the complete lack of major league caliber starting pitching in their minor league system, but maybe some of what you said might be true and relevant somehow.
    The lack of pitching in the upper minors would not have been such a big deal if the attrition for that generation wasn't so high. If three of them had been available to go with Wood and Teheran, I think the front office would have been a bit more relaxed about not having a strong pipeline in the upper minors.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  12. #89
    Shift Leader thethe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    69,579
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    5,507
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5,179
    Thanked in
    3,898 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Not really. Even with the bust rate for pitchers, it should give us 2 from the early rounds every six years and 1 from the later rounds. I think in terms of 6 year cycles because those are the years before free agency. So in the "model" I have in mind we need to generate 4 starters every six years, with the fifth starter coming in the form of an external acquisition. Plus you need to generate 2-3 more replacement level guys who can fill in as needed when there is an injury.

    Roughly you generate a top guy (4 WAR or better), 1 #2 (3 WAR), a couple mid rotation types (2 WAR) every six years. Plus some filler type guys. It is not an aggressive demand and if we are efficient with our drafting we can do it as I outlined.
    Can you provide any organization that has had that type of success rate using the investment startegy that you outlined for starting pitchers?

    I'm not even trying to argue that you are wrong since you are typically meticulous in all your thoughts. My gut tells me that there won't be any teams that have that type of strategy yields so much fruit. Its possible that they hit randomly on a later pick but there are so many busts and the draft is such a crapshoot that I don't believe a 'stingy' pitching strategy approach will end up providing success on an average basis.
    Natural Immunity Croc

  13. #90
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    True. We started the rebuild with a front office having very fresh memories of an entire generation of promising starting pitchers (Jurrjens, Hanson, Minor, Medlen, Beachy) reaching the majors but suffering from injury and other issues that prevented them from realizing their potential. So maybe there was a bit of over compensation from that. And I think they believed their own spin about the Braves Way and the Braves being a factory for developing pitchers. So they overinvested in pitching.
    Probably right. But Jurrjens was a relative unknown as an international signee IIRC, signed by the Tigers originally in 2003 then traded to the Braves for Edgar Renteria. Hanson was a 22nd round pick in the 2005 draft. Medlen was a 10th round pick in the 2006 draft. Beachy wasn't drafted but was signed in 2008. Only Minor was a high draft pick at #7 overall in 2009 and most in the industry thought it was a massive reach. Also, all but Jurrjens were college guys. In 2005 the Braves drafted Joey Devine in the first round at 27 and Beau Jones at 41. In 2006 they drafted Cody Johnson at 24 then Cory Rasmus at 38 and Steve Evarts at 43. In 2008 they drafted Brett DeVall at 40.

    If they were self evaluating at all, I think there were more important data points than injury.

    Maybe the Braves way is " when we pick pitching early, we fall on our face. But we're pretty good at finding diamonds in the rough given enough chances."

  14. #91
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Super View Post
    but to your last paragraph, i think the Braves' "emphasis" on pitching during the rebuild is overblown, while other teams' "emphasis" on hitters is similarly overblown, anyway. i think they probably did often take the best player offered to them, whether in a trade or via draft. a lot of times that could have been an undervalued pitcher they liked a lot.
    I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

    I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

    The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Enscheff For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  16. #92
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    Sure you need a little luck. We have hit on guys like Anibal and Harang for a year. I'm talking about signing a few guys like that to be your fifth starter, not making trades for someone like Archer.

    So in any given season your rotation would look something like this:

    1) Former high round pick
    2) Former high round pick
    3) International signing
    4) Later round pick who panned out
    5) Someone like Anibal
    It's unrealistic to expect an organization to draft so few pitchers and still have a rotation that is almost completely homegrown.

    The strategy around acquiring safer position players is so you can trade them for pitchers who are finished products to help fill the holes in the roster. Let other organizations suffer through pitcher attrition, and then give them surplus position prospects when they sell the last 1-2 years of their arms.
    Last edited by Enscheff; 06-19-2019 at 01:42 PM.

  17. #93
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

    I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

    The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?
    Hector Olivera (ducks)

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Horsehide Harry For This Useful Post:

    bravesfanMatt (06-19-2019)

  19. #94
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    Hector Olivera (ducks)
    Maitan too I suppose.

    Still a very impressive hit rate on position prospects.

  20. #95
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Horsehide Harry View Post
    Probably right. But Jurrjens was a relative unknown as an international signee IIRC, signed by the Tigers originally in 2003 then traded to the Braves for Edgar Renteria. Hanson was a 22nd round pick in the 2005 draft. Medlen was a 10th round pick in the 2006 draft. Beachy wasn't drafted but was signed in 2008. Only Minor was a high draft pick at #7 overall in 2009 and most in the industry thought it was a massive reach. Also, all but Jurrjens were college guys. In 2005 the Braves drafted Joey Devine in the first round at 27 and Beau Jones at 41. In 2006 they drafted Cody Johnson at 24 then Cory Rasmus at 38 and Steve Evarts at 43. In 2008 they drafted Brett DeVall at 40.

    If they were self evaluating at all, I think there were more important data points than injury.

    Maybe the Braves way is " when we pick pitching early, we fall on our face. But we're pretty good at finding diamonds in the rough given enough chances."
    Our success rate has tended to be average when taking pitchers in the first round (picks 1-30), well below average after that in the early rounds (from pick 31 to end of third round) and we have done pretty well with the late round and NDFA diamonds in the rough.

    The area we have really lagged the industry is HS pitchers taken from pick 31 to end of the third round. Long after most other teams figured out this is a very risky part of the draft for HS pitchers we continued to take them in large numbers.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  22. #96
    Mr. Free Trade
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    3,139
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    470
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    834
    Thanked in
    514 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    Maitan too I suppose.

    Still a very impressive hit rate on position prospects.
    agreed

  23. #97
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thethe View Post
    Can you provide any organization that has had that type of success rate using the investment startegy that you outlined for starting pitchers?

    I'm not even trying to argue that you are wrong since you are typically meticulous in all your thoughts. My gut tells me that there won't be any teams that have that type of strategy yields so much fruit. Its possible that they hit randomly on a later pick but there are so many busts and the draft is such a crapshoot that I don't believe a 'stingy' pitching strategy approach will end up providing success on an average basis.
    Here is a little more detail on what the yield has to be (and I present the numbers on an every 6 years basis)

    1. Take 2 pitchers in the first round every six years. The historical yield for us and other teams is about 50%. So getting 1 starting pitcher here is realistic.
    2. Take 4 starting pitchers from picks 31 to end of the third round every six years. Our yield has been poor with this group. We would have to improve in these rounds.
    3. Generate 1 starting pitcher from rounds 4 onward ever six years. Over the years we have done ok here with Beachy, Medlen, Bryse Wilson, Weigel taken in this rounds.
    4. Generate 1 starting pitcher from the international market every six years. Doable, but would require an improvement on our part.

    We may come up a bit short. In which case I am ok with trading some position prospects to fill the shortfall. Because our yield on drafting position prospects (especially picks 31 to end of third round) has been very good. So I'd rather draft the position prospects and trade some of them.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

  25. #98
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    The lack of pitching in the upper minors would not have been such a big deal if the attrition for that generation wasn't so high. If three of them had been available to go with Wood and Teheran, I think the front office would have been a bit more relaxed about not having a strong pipeline in the upper minors.

    The front office lived in the world where that attrition actually did happen though.

    I'm sure they would have behaved differently if circumstances had been different.

    But whatever strategy the previous front office had banked on --- perhaps only needing 2-3 starting pitching prospects to hit every 6 years -- crapped out on them.

  26. #99
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    8,025
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,467
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,951
    Thanked in
    1,360 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscheff View Post
    I can't really disagree too strongly with this portion of your post.

    I don't think the Braves targeted pitchers. I think they weren't correctly weighing the riskiness of pitchers when assigning value to players, and that caused them to overvalue pitchers by some non-trivial degree. That overvaluation led to them acquiring more arms than was probably optimal.

    The Braves are very fortunate that almost all their top position prospects have hit. Have they even had a single top position prospect flop?
    this is a far more nuanced and seemingly accurate assessment of what happened than what is usually said around here, so bravo.

    as to your question...i guess you'd have to technically throw Maitan in there, but he was gone quickly. looking back at lists, there weren't a ton in the top-10. Maitan, Olivera, Bethancourt, Davidson, Kubitza...but with those guys, especially the last two, we're getting to the point where the farm was really bad and they weren't super recent so I'll stop there.
    "Well, you’ll learn soon enough that this was a massive red wave landslide." - thethe on the 2020 election that trump lost bigly

    “I can’t fix my life, but I can fix the world.” - sturg

  27. #100
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,433
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    The front office lived in the world where that attrition actually did happen though.

    I'm sure they would have behaved differently if circumstances had been different.

    But whatever strategy the previous front office had banked on --- perhaps only needing 2-3 starting pitching prospects to hit every 6 years -- crapped out on them.
    I think strategy should not be based upon worst case assumptions when it comes to attrition. Which is pretty much what happened with that group of pitchers.
    "I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."

    "I am your retribution."

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (06-19-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. 2018 Trade Deadline ROSTERBATION
    By Enscheff in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 2852
    Last Post: 09-02-2018, 09:01 PM
  2. Trade Deadline: What are you willing to do?
    By Horsehide Harry in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 419
    Last Post: 07-28-2016, 09:01 PM
  3. Trade Deadline/Rumors thread
    By sturg33 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 1126
    Last Post: 07-31-2015, 06:49 PM
  4. MLB Trade Deadline Discussion
    By NinersSBChamps in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 960
    Last Post: 08-06-2014, 03:22 PM
  5. Trade Deadline Day
    By bravesnumberone in forum 2013 Legendary
    Replies: 253
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 09:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •