Reloading and Punting: Is there a Distinction?

nsacpi

nsacpi

Expects Yuge Games
I think there is a distinction though it practice the results of the two processes tend to be difficult to completely separate.

For example, the talent acquired through this year's draft and from the past three international signing periods could have been drafted and signed whether or not we traded away Heyward, Justin, Gattis and Kimbrel. For the most part. But not completely since some of the draft picks were acquired by trade.

The decision about blowing past the slot limits in the next signing period could have been taken whether or not we had punted on 2015. Again, there is a sublte link in the sense the financial penalties will be held down by the size of our slots for next year.

Where there will be a big difference is in next year's draft, where we will be drafting much higher as a result of punting.

Why do I raise this question? Well it seems to me that the best and most exciting portion of the talent influx came from the draft and international signings rather than the players we picked up via trades. I would make the case that punting has accelerated our rebuild only slightly (though this might change if we get a franchise player in next year's draft). It does not look like we will have a really exciting championship caliber team until the current group of players age 17 or 18 start to reach the majors (Allard, Soroka, Albies, Riley, Yepez, Acuna, Herbert, etc). Some of the guys we picked up via trade will undoubtedly be around to contribute but they in all likelihood be supporting players rather than foundational players.
 
On the other hand, the players we traded for while punting were almost all much closer to the Majors than the prospects you're mentioning. I think we've seen a big shift in MLB regarding the value of role players with a bunch of team control. With the price of a win increasing so dramatically with the higher payrolls, getting these players who are closer to being sure things to contribute can be increasingly valuable. Also, the truly exciting young prospects are largely off the market in most cases.

One thing that I think is also important in this discussion is what the alternatives were. Even if all the players we acquired are role players or worse, we largely gave up rentals for them. What is the point of having Juan Uribe here another 2 months? Would Justin Upton in Left Field really move the needle from bottom 5 to the playoffs? What value was there in having Evan Gattis get on base less than 30% of the time while being a terrible fielder? I'd rather have our young players than watch all of these guys play out their contracts and leave us this fall.
 
nsacpi said:
I think there is a distinction though it practice the results of the two processes tend to be difficult to completely separate.

For example, the talent acquired through this year's draft and from the past three international signing periods could have been drafted and signed whether or not we traded away Heyward, Justin, Gattis and Kimbrel. For the most part. But not completely since some of the draft picks were acquired by trade.

The decision about blowing past the slot limits in the next signing period could have been taken whether or not we had punted on 2015. Again, there is a sublte link in the sense the financial penalties will be held down by the size of our slots for next year.

Where there will be a big difference is in next year's draft, where we will be drafting much higher as a result of punting.

Why do I raise this question? Well it seems to me that the best and most exciting portion of the talent influx came from the draft and international signings rather than the players we picked up via trades. I would make the case that punting has accelerated our rebuild only slightly (though this might change if we get a franchise player in next year's draft). It does not look like we will have a really exciting championship caliber team until the current group of players age 17 or 18 start to reach the majors (Allard, Soroka, Albies, Riley, Yepez, Acuna, Herbert, etc). Some of the guys we picked up via trade will undoubtedly be around to contribute but they in all likelihood be supporting players rather than foundational players.
Click to expand...

Without the trades that were made, we don't have Shelby Miller under control for the next few years. We don't have high level prospects in Mike Foltynewicz and Matt Wisler. We don't get Arodys Vizcaino if we don't move Tommy La Stella. We don't have Mallex Smith, or Dustin Peterson as outfield prospects in the system. We don't have Max Fried who is a potential high level arm in the system. We don't have Touki Toussaint, another high level arm in the system. We don't have Tyrell Jenkins, who could be a 5th starter or a heck of a set up man.
 
No. Reloading and punting are the same thing. People use different buzzwords like retooling or reloading so fans will not just sit out all year.
 
Sigh. I remember when everyone around baseball were giving us huge praise for "reloading" in 2005.

I genuinely thought Francoeur, McCann, and Co. would continue the streak for many years. Folks on the Mets board were pissed at how we were basically not having to go through a rebuild to continue our streak.

So much for that.
 
KB21 said:
Without the trades that were made, we don't have Shelby Miller under control for the next few years. We don't have high level prospects in Mike Foltynewicz and Matt Wisler. We don't get Arodys Vizcaino if we don't move Tommy La Stella. We don't have Mallex Smith, or Dustin Peterson as outfield prospects in the system. We don't have Max Fried who is a potential high level arm in the system. We don't have Touki Toussaint, another high level arm in the system. We don't have Tyrell Jenkins, who could be a 5th starter or a heck of a set up man.
Click to expand...

Also, Riley, who is one of the primary reasons we're excited about this draft, was basically part of the Kimbrel deal.

There's no doubt that we have brought in plenty of talent outside of the main trades we made, but that doesn't means those trades weren't the best decision.

And by making the firm decision to rebuild, it gave us monetary flexibility we wouldn't have otherwise had - where we were able to add Touki. And get CJ's contract off the books for 2017. And it also allowed us to get rid of BJ, which will likely help us rebuild faster.
 
smootness said:
Also, Riley, who is one of the primary reasons we're excited about this draft, was basically part of the Kimbrel deal.

There's no doubt that we have brought in plenty of talent outside of the main trades we made, but that doesn't means those trades weren't the best decision.

And by making the firm decision to rebuild, it gave us monetary flexibility we wouldn't have otherwise had - where we were able to add Touki. And get CJ's contract off the books for 2017. And it also allowed us to get rid of BJ, which will likely help us rebuild faster.
Click to expand...

Jordan Paroubeck was also part of that deal and then traded for international slot money to keep us from going over this year.
 
I personally think the distinction is only there for the impatient - "punting", "retooling", "rebuilding", whatever all mean the same thing in GM-speak.

Like them or not, Hart & Company have done and are doing an awesome job in completely changing the franchise and putting it back in a position to compete on a regular basis. NOBODY likes to lose - even for a couple years - but when you're a mid-market payroll team that's coming off an extended period of success (no truly bad seasons in the extended past), the cards are really stacked against you when you try to reload from within. It's become increasingly tougher to add impact talent when you constantly pick in the second half of drafts and you don't have the means to spend lavishly on international players. Many of the prospects and picks they've added look as if they'll profile as average to above-average regulars by 2017 or 2018. They read the international market correctly and are going to be able to blow the budget in a year when the teams that normally spend big have their hands tied and look like they'll be able to add a serious impact player in Maitan and potentially one or two more. Another good draft picking at a much higher position than we've been able to pick in 2016 will have the system back to one that's overflowing with potential.

What leads to many of the arguments around here (IMO) is that some people think that you can "retool/rebuild/whatever" overnight. That just doesn't happen anymore. While part of all of us wants to go nuts this winter and sign a couple of impact players to make the team a contender, that may not be the prudent approach. The only problem I have is with those that dismiss that as an option. There is plenty of financial flexibility to go out and sign anyone they want - the difference is that Hart & Company may be choosing to exercise restraint because they're trying to set things up for another 10-15 year run of success as opposed to a 3-4 year window like Wren was working on.

The Padres and White Sox "won" last offseason - the Marlins "won" the offseason a couple years back. Those teams are/were in the same position we've been in - a short period that they have affordable pieces under control and very little help to plug in if everything didn't go according to plan. While it's terribly hard to be patient enough when the fanbase is screaming for everyone's head and wants to win NOW, the truly successful organizations like the Cardinals and Giants understand that you only need 2 or 3 top-shelf "stars" if you've surrounded them with good players and have more coming when needed. As someone mentioned earlier, all the talent stockpiled from the trades and picks that have been made and the international signings will be beginning to knock on the door within 2-3 years and will be under control for a long time after that, If Freeman is what we all think he is and only one or two of the kids develop and have an All-Star season or two, you fill the holes you have come 2017 via trade or free-agency and you've got a chance to become another juggernaut.

I personally think that's really all fans can - or should - ask for. By the time the new park opens, we'll have average to above-average regulars throughout the 40-Man Roster, and most of them will be making peanuts. You replace a $9 million Maybin with a $500,000 Smith, a $14,000,000 Bourn with a $500,000 Peterson, and a $15,000,000 Swisher with a $500,000 Davidson and suddenly you can sign or trade for ANYBODY you want.
 
I'll just note that even if you exclude players who might have been acquired using draft picks or slot money we traded for, we would have been able to acquire Albies, Allard, Soroka, Yepez and Acuna. None of those acquisitions were a function of trading major league talent.

One relatively minor trade (La Stella) yielded slot money to add a number of other promising young international talents.

Consider also that if we had kept Heyward and Justin Upton and let them play out their contracts, we would have had draft picks at about the same spots we used to draft Soroka and Riley this year.
 
clvclv said:
...Many of the prospects and picks they've added look as if they'll profile as average to above-average regulars by 2017 or 2018

...

If Freeman is what we all think he is and only one or two of the kids develop and have an All-Star season or two, you fill the holes you have come 2017 via trade or free-agency and you've got a chance to become another juggernaut.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know which ones you think will profile as average to above-average regs by 2017 to 2018.

Also, which ones do you think might develop and have an all-star season or two in the next few?

Thanks!
 
nsacpi said:
I'll just note that even if you exclude players who might have been acquired using draft picks or slot money we traded for, we would have been able to acquire Albies, Allard, Soroka, Yepez and Acuna. None of those acquisitions were a function of trading major league talent.

One relatively minor trade (La Stella) yielded slot money to add a number of other promising young international talents.

Consider also that if we had kept Heyward and Justin Upton and let them play out their contracts, we would have had draft picks at about the same spots we used to draft Soroka and Riley this year.
Click to expand...

So the question would be would we rather have the two picks instead of Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Jace, Mallex, and Dustin P.?
 
Chico said:
So the question would be would we rather have the two picks instead of Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Jace, Mallex, and Dustin P.?
Click to expand...
you might be overlooking a small additional consideration....think hard

Even aside from that additional consideration it isn't clear to me that the players you listed have a combined value higher than Soroka and Riley. Miller has been very good this year, but shouldn't we be discounting that in light of it being a meaningless year. And he will be getting expensive as he moves through his arbitration years.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm curious to know which ones you think will profile as average to above-average regs by 2017 to 2018.

Also, which ones do you think might develop and have an all-star season or two in the next few?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

JMO, but I do think Mallex, Albies, and Bethancourt will be at least average regulars by that time. Olivera should be average to a little better with a chance to have a couple pretty good years during the life of his deal, meaning neither Ruiz or Riley need to be rushed - I wouldn't be surprised to see Ruiz spend 2016 back in Mississippi (at least to begin with). While that's not necessarily what we hope for as a ceiling for Hector, I think the organization would be quite happy if they get consistent .270/.330/.430 15 HR, 80+ RBI seasons from him with a couple better ones sprinkled in given how little payroll space he'll take up.

Maitan then becomes the wildcard. If he's anywhere close to as good as advertised and adjusts smoothly, he gives you that other potential All-Star by 2018. You then have to decide where he'll help the most. I personally think that if you're a believer in Ruiz or Riley, you start him out in RF from the word go. This gives you the chance to plug him in there when he's ready and turns LF into an open competition between Peterson and Davidson in 2017 or when Markakis' money's off the books. IF Maitan can handle CF well enough defensively to give Mallex a blow from time-to-time, you could carry both those guys (assuming continued development of course).
 
clvclv said:
JMO, but I do think Mallex, Albies, and Bethancourt will be at least average regulars by that time.
Click to expand...

And which ones will have had an All-Star season or two by that time.

Btw Albies and Bethancourt were not acquisitions gained as a result of punting in 2015. Which is kind of my point.
 
nsacpi said:
And which ones will have had an All-Star season or two by that time.

Btw Albies and Bethancourt were not acquisitions gained as a result of punting in 2015. Which is kind of my point.
Click to expand...

That goes back to what I mentioned - whatever you want to call "the plan" - all the pieces have to figure into it. Albies and Bethancourt were/are part of the thought process. I think it's counterproductive to worry about "who Wren left" or "who Hart brought in". Who cares who was sitting in that chair as long as the goal is ultimately acheived?

I'm one of the few who bought Miller from the word go and do think we'll see another All-Star appearance from him, and think Simmons keeps improving with the bat the longer he works with Seitzer and eventually gets a nod or two.
 
nsacpi said:
I'll just note that even if you exclude players who might have been acquired using draft picks or slot money we traded for, we would have been able to acquire Albies, Allard, Soroka, Yepez and Acuna. None of those acquisitions were a function of trading major league talent.

One relatively minor trade (La Stella) yielded slot money to add a number of other promising young international talents.

Consider also that if we had kept Heyward and Justin Upton and let them play out their contracts, we would have had draft picks at about the same spots we used to draft Soroka and Riley this year.
Click to expand...

And one player in A ball and 4 others in rookie ball are not the reason our farm system is where it is. We have tons and tons of depth. Yes, Albies and Allard are two top pieces, but the rest of the guys you mentioned are still pretty much complete unknowns.

You seem to be implying we could have kept the guys we traded and still ended up with a farm system roughly equivalent to what we have now, and that is bonkers.
 
nsacpi said:
you might be overlooking a small additional consideration....think hard

Even aside from that additional consideration it isn't clear to me that the players you listed have a combined value higher than Soroka and Riley. Miller has been very good this year, but shouldn't we be discounting that in light of it being a meaningless year. And he will be getting expensive as he moves through his arbitration years.
Click to expand...

According to ESPN Heyward and Miller have the same WAR this year. The difference between Upton and Markakis is about 2.5 WAR. I don't think 2.5 WAR would have been close enough for us to compete even had we held onto some of the guys we traded (Wood, Uribe, KJ, etc). So putting aside the idea that we could have been competitive this year I personally would much rather have Miller for 3 more years, Jenkins, Smith, Petersen, Fried and Jace rather than the two compensation picks.

Also, Soroka and Riley aren't next year's compensation picks. It's unfair to assume that we will get two more prospects in next year's draft that are as good as Soroka and Riley appear to be.
 
smootness said:
And one player in A ball and 4 others in rookie ball are not the reason our farm system is where it is. We have tons and tons of depth. Yes, Albies and Allard are two top pieces, but the rest of the guys you mentioned are still pretty much complete unknowns.

You seem to be implying we could have kept the guys we traded and still ended up with a farm system roughly equivalent to what we have now, and that is bonkers.
Click to expand...

You've said on a couple of occasions that we have the deepest farm system around. Can you tell me particularly why you feel that way? Not necessarily disagreeing, just want to understand exactly what you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top