Angels close to acquiring Kyle Kubitza from Braves
- Thread starter dak
- Start date
Heyward
<B>Voted Worst Poster <br>'13, '14, '15 (Co-Winner
You always bash Braves signings but praise everything the Nats do
The Nats have made far better moves in the past 3 years.
I've praised plenty of moves. Signing Freeman, JUP trade, Escobar trade, decent drafts, etc. I actually wrongly liked the Uggla trade.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
You can blame it on a lot of things. But they didn't have to sign Markakis. Still on the market like 2 months later we still have Rasmus, Gutierrez, Delmon Young, Andy Dirks, Nolan Reimold, and a few other guys who could have been had for cheaper and less years. We didn't have to sign Markakis, we chose to sign and him chose to outbid everyone else.
Those guys are scrubs, lol. I'd rather pull someone out of the stands and play right field.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
In 2014
Markakis - 30 - 106 wRC+ 2.5 fWAR
Delmon - 28 - 120 wRC+ 0.9 fWAR
Gutierrez - 31 - 114 wRC+ 0.5 fWAR
They're all risky signings, but they could have been had for much much cheaper than Markakis and we could have invested Markakis's money elsewhere. Either for future free agents, a big international signing, or just invest it into the scouting department. 10 M buys a lot of scouts.
Tapate50
Well-known member
Buying on a career year for Young, and while I like FG... He is no bet to play 50 games.
None of those players are near the complete package and reliability of NM. I get you don't like the signing, and that has validity but the Braves obviously wanted him around for 2017. You don't, and that's ok but it's the fundamental difference in your thought process.
With the pitching staff that we have on this team, we should be able to at least be competitive while we are building for 2017. Nick is a good, solid right fielder who fits in the high contact, low strike out strategy we are taking. He will help us compete. But I think the Braves also wanted him for his reputation as an excellent clubhouse guy. We need guys like him to rebuild our clubhouse atmosphere which has gone south over the past couple years.
I think we probably would have rather gone 3 years instead of 4, but the Orioles had already made him a 4 year, $40MM offer, so if we were going to get him, we had to go a little over that. Nick will help us be competitive over the next few years, but also he will help get our clubhouse back to where it needs to be and mentor all our young guys that we have. The move makes more sense than many on here think.
I think we probably would have rather gone 3 years instead of 4, but the Orioles had already made him a 4 year, $40MM offer, so if we were going to get him, we had to go a little over that. Nick will help us be competitive over the next few years, but also he will help get our clubhouse back to where it needs to be and mentor all our young guys that we have. The move makes more sense than many on here think.
What left-handed bat from our system do you plan to pair with Young to get those types of numbers? He was a strict platoon guy last year - otherwise he wouldn't have scared that type of production.
Not saying I wouldn't mind him as part of a platoon (pretty sure everyone here has been a fan of his bat at differing points during his career), but certainly not at the expense of Gattis ABs - and if we're being honest, he's never been MUCH better than Gattis defensively in the OF, so putting him in RF makes us that much worse out there.
This is what NM is all about. Given the current and future economics of baseball, this is not a large contract and it will get smaller every year. He will never be spectacular, but will provide a level of consistency that will be huge for this young team.
keithlaw
Playing the Waiting Game
He signed for ~$580,000 which is equivalent to mid 3rd round slot money.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Not sure that's the best comparison. Because they are entirely different markets. Also, Ben Badler said that if he had the uptick in his velocity a few months earlier he would have been worth a lot more.
He's got a FV of 50/extreme according to John Manuel. That seems like mid to late first round.
chop2chip
Well-known member
Where did you read about the change up? That seems to be the "knock" on him?
It's his fastball and curve that get all the raves.
chop2chip
Well-known member
From Keith Law
In a smaller trade earlier this week, Atlanta acquired one of the Angels' top prospects, left-hander Ricardo Sanchez, in exchange for Double-A third baseman Kyle Kubitza and Class A reliever Nate Hyatt. Sanchez pitched at 17 this summer in the Arizona Rookie League, reaching 94-96 in his three- to four-inning stints and sitting a little below that, with an above-average curveball that projects to plus. He'll need to refine his changeup, build up innings, and improve his command, although he gets high marks for his composure on the mound. He's a long way off -- four years if you're an optimist -- but if he stays healthy, he could become a midrotation or better starter.
I was surprised the Angels were willing to give him up, given his high ceiling. Kubitza projects as a fringe regular, if that; his walk rates are great, but he wasn't young for Double-A, has limited power, and will require some work to become an adequate defender at third. Hyatt is an org reliever who hasn't quite conquered Class A in two years at the level. Kubitza might, if you squint really hard, end up a weak grade-50 player in the majors, and he's probably a year away from the big leagues; Sanchez is a much more volatile asset, but his upside is too substantial for me to give him up without getting some star potential in return.
In a smaller trade earlier this week, Atlanta acquired one of the Angels' top prospects, left-hander Ricardo Sanchez, in exchange for Double-A third baseman Kyle Kubitza and Class A reliever Nate Hyatt. Sanchez pitched at 17 this summer in the Arizona Rookie League, reaching 94-96 in his three- to four-inning stints and sitting a little below that, with an above-average curveball that projects to plus. He'll need to refine his changeup, build up innings, and improve his command, although he gets high marks for his composure on the mound. He's a long way off -- four years if you're an optimist -- but if he stays healthy, he could become a midrotation or better starter.
I was surprised the Angels were willing to give him up, given his high ceiling. Kubitza projects as a fringe regular, if that; his walk rates are great, but he wasn't young for Double-A, has limited power, and will require some work to become an adequate defender at third. Hyatt is an org reliever who hasn't quite conquered Class A in two years at the level. Kubitza might, if you squint really hard, end up a weak grade-50 player in the majors, and he's probably a year away from the big leagues; Sanchez is a much more volatile asset, but his upside is too substantial for me to give him up without getting some star potential in return.
ramadon101
Danville Rookie
Pretty much everyone but Keith Law, actually.
Here's what BP had to say about Sanchez when the Angels first signed him:
The Year Ahead: Sanchez is an exciting prospect, not only because of the promise found in the arsenal but the complete lack of professional experience. Sanchez gets to throw his first professional pitch in 2014, most likely at the complex level, but his showing at instructs was enough to force a Pavlovian prospect response. With a smooth and easy delivery, a present fastball that sits 91, a promising CB that has touched 80, and the beginnings of a changeup that could develop into his money pitch, Sanchez is well on his way to becoming a very high-end prospect.
Every article about him talks about "an advanced feel" for his change. I dug up some scouting reports from Prospect Instinct and Mayo's MLB reports and it lists his change as a third pitch but not far behind his curveball (Mayo ranked his FB as a 55, his curve as a 50 and his change as a 45 but improving and with the ability to improve significantly).
I haven't seen him pitch so I can't say myself but it sounds like he's very promising since he's a lefty with the potential to have three "put away" pitches.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I don't see how that contradicts what Law said or what I said. It's pretty clear that his change is his third best pitch. However, that's not unusual since it's usually the last pitch pitchers learn to harness.