Mallex Smith promoted to AAA

Should have left Peraza at second, or even at short to keep his trade value up. Another parting gift from Frank.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by this. I assume it's another snide shot at Wren from Law. But Law just said, literally in the first sentence, that Peraza should have been left at second. Wren did leave Peraza at second- it was the only position Jose played in 2014. It was the new regime that decided to move Peraza around the diamond.

If the argument is that Wren made a mistake moving Peraza from short at all ("or even at short"), I mean, that's...fine, I guess, though moving a minor league shortstop to second base when you have Andrelton Simmons at short and Dan Uggla at second seems like an eminently reasonable decision. But if moving him to second was a mistake, and moving him around the field was a bigger one, why is Wren the only guy getting called out here, when it was the new regime that did the latter? Especially since the Wren regime is the reason Hart and Co. even have Peraza to play around with.
 
gilesfan said:
That I wouldn't take their careers overall? How is that opposite?
Click to expand...

You didn't say you wouldn't take their overall careers. You said you wouldn't take them in CF. But then basically said you actually would take Coleman's first 6 years.

Most players don't have more than 6-8 productive years. Our choice isn't no Mallex or Mallex for 20 years, including all of his 30s.

Everyone would be happy if Mallex is Vince Coleman before he hits free agency.
 
smootness said:
You didn't say you wouldn't take their overall careers. You said you wouldn't take them in CF. But then basically said you actually would take Coleman's first 6 years.

Most players don't have more than 6-8 productive years. Our choice isn't no Mallex or Mallex for 20 years, including all of his 30s.

Everyone would be happy if Mallex is Vince Coleman before he hits free agency.
Click to expand...

No, I said I wouldn't take them. (overall careers) You said...but, there are a handful of years somewhere in their careers that they were good.

I didn't say I would take Colemans either. I said Nixons were "acceptable, I guess"
 
gilesfan said:
No, I said I wouldn't take them. (overall careers) You said...but, there are a handful of years somewhere in their careers that they were good.

I didn't say I would take Colemans either. I said Nixons were "acceptable, I guess"
Click to expand...

Then you're just making a weird argument. You wouldn't take an average of 2 WAR over a guy's first 6 years, but you would take an average of about 1.5 WAR over 7 years in the middle of a guy's career.

And again, saying you wouldn't take Coleman's career because after his first 8 years, he wasn't very good doesn't really make much sense in context of Mallex Smith. We don't have to take his 30s if we don't want to. You wouldn't take him if his first 6 years are comparable to Coleman's?

'I wouldn't take Coleman in CF if that's what Mallex Smith becomes because once he hit his 30s he was no longer productive.' You don't see how that's kind of a strange stance?
 
chop2chip said:
Oh gotcha. I read that wrong. I totally agree.
Click to expand...

that's why I'd love to get a Cespedes type...even we overpay to get it to be a shorter deal. He's 30 so I don't know that he'd do it. I'd love a 2-3 year deal with a team option. Pay him 30 million next year when we drop that dead money and guys are still cheap if we can get away with paying 15 million or less for the rest of the deal. 3/60 with a team option? 30, 15, 15. We could trade that 15 million year or year if needed.
 
smootness said:
Then you're just making a weird argument. You wouldn't take an average of 2 WAR over a guy's first 6 years, but you would take an average of about 1.5 WAR over 7 years in the middle of a guy's career.

And again, saying you wouldn't take Coleman's career because after his first 8 years, he wasn't very good doesn't really make much sense in context of Mallex Smith. We don't have to take his 30s if we don't want to. You wouldn't take him if his first 6 years are comparable to Coleman's?

'I wouldn't take Coleman in CF if that's what Mallex Smith becomes because once he hit his 30s he was no longer productive.' You don't see how that's kind of a strange stance?
Click to expand...

You aren't even reading what I wrote so I don't know that it is even worth it to carry on forever. You totally ignored the games played for Nixon.

Tried to find a comparable player over a 6 year time period with over 3,500 at bats. Inferior to BJ Uptons 6 years from 08-14 (as well as Byrd and Chris Young)

A 2 WAR player last year was Ben Revere (Vince was under 2 per year).....not, that's not someone I would be happy to take.
 
gilesfan said:
You aren't even reading what I wrote so I don't know that it is even worth it to carry on forever. You totally ignored the games played for Nixon.

Tried to find a comparable player over a 6 year time period with over 3,500 at bats. Inferior to BJ Uptons 6 years from 08-14 (as well as Byrd and Chris Young)

A 2 WAR player last year was Ben Revere (Vince was under 2 per year).....not, that's not someone I would be happy to take.
Click to expand...

Revere was a 2 WAR player according to whom last year? He's on pace to better that this year...because he's hitting .292 with a .700 OPS while on pace to steal 40 bases playing above-average defense in CF. You wouldn't take that?

I just don't get your stance. Arguing that Coleman was below 2 WAR/year is asinine, as it was 1.983/year. And yes, I would gladly take Upton's 08-14 stretch from Mallex. Who wouldn't? We just don't then pay him the huge deal, and we make off like bandits.

And yes, Coleman played 14 more games over the stretch we're talking about than Nixon did. You think that covers the 1.7 WAR?
 
Coleman had (don't know exact number) but around 500 more plate appearances in the time period. Either way, that is pointless to discuss.

fangraphs had Revere at 2.1. Bref had 0.7. Since I used fangraphs for Nixon/Coleman; it's probably fair to use it for Revere. Last year Revere hit .306/.325/.361 with below average defense and a 2.1 WAR. That slightly better/around even to what Coleman averaged over his first 6 years. So, there is no way in hell I'd be happy about the 2014 version of Revere for 6 years.

What Revere is on pace for this year is also pointless. You are claiming you would take the 2014 version of Ben Revers for Mallex Smith. I wouldn't.

BJ Upton was significant better than Vince Coleman over the 6 years mentioned.
 
And the other remaining spots are going to have to average about a 3 WAR each to be a playoff team.
 
I'm not expecting Mallex Smith to be one of the primary guys that leads us to a championship. I'm not looking for 5 WAR out of our CF; I'd take it, but it's not overly realistic. So if he can give us 2 WAR as an average season, that's fine with me.

2 WAR is a solid everyday starter at the major league level. I will take that from him.
 
gilesfan said:
And the other remaining spots are going to have to average about a 3 WAR each to be a playoff team.
Click to expand...

And I think that's reasonable for the most part. The problem the 2013 and 2014 Braves had was they they had huge holes at 2-3 positions where just a 2 WAR player would of been a godsend. 2 WAR players, especially those who are in their pre-FA years, can be very valuable to a ball club.
 
chop2chip said:
I do know there are concerns he can stick in LF. I like him quite a bit less at 1B.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know who those concerns are coming from. Having seen Braxton personally more than a couple times I personally have NO question he can handle LF, and think with a little work on conditioning he could play RF as well as Markakis does now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top