Around Baseball 2015 Edition

nsacpi said:
Olivera and Wisler were on the most recent BA Top 100 or Top 50 list before we got them.
Click to expand...

Wisler wasn't consensus.

Olivera - I simply don't consider a prospect. He is 30, will be 31 next year. I look at a prospect as someone who can contribute for 6 years. Olivera I think may be able to contribute for 3... maybe
 
sturg33 said:
Man... what a dumbass signing that Markakis deal was
Click to expand...

Not a fan of the signing, though I'm relieved at this point that we've avoided the worst case scenario. There was a chance that he would fall off a cliff after undergoing major surgery, and he seems to have avoided that. So the outcome over 4 years now looks only kinda bad.
 
Carp said:
Pretty likely that both Wisler and Folty would easily be a top 50 prospect if they were left in AAA all yr and were still eligible.
Click to expand...

I think Folty wouldn't have a prayer.

Wisler, maybe. But I also don't even consider a top 50 prospect an "impact" prospect... More like top 20 or 30.

Having said that, if you're arguing we got a whole bunch of prospects for all of our trades... well duh. That's what happens when you trade away young talent like Heyward, Upton, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, and Peraza.

The sad part is though, that Price, Cespedes and others brought back more in the deadline than we got in the offseason... not more in quantity but more quality. Hart went after quantity
 
sturg33 said:
Wisler wasn't consensus.

Olivera - I simply don't consider a prospect. He is 30, will be 31 next year. I look at a prospect as someone who can contribute for 6 years. Olivera I think may be able to contribute for 3... maybe
Click to expand...

I wouldn't either since he's not even on a rookie contract so to speak.
 
dak said:
Not a fan of the signing, though I'm relieved at this point that we've avoided the worst case scenario. There was a chance that he would fall off a cliff after undergoing major surgery, and he seems to have avoided that. So the outcome over 4 years now looks only kinda bad.
Click to expand...

He hasn't been very good this year. 1.4 WAR - which makes him slightly overpaid this season. He has been a barely above average hitter, a below average defender and a below average base runner. And this is likely to be his best season of the 4.

His and Dan Uggla's money could have paid Heyward.
 
sturg33 said:
Hart went after quantity
Click to expand...

Also the trades mostly were us sending hitting for pitching. In an era where hitting is scarce and pitching is relatively plentiful. I suppose those trades would have been ok if the "exchange rate" properly reflected the relative scarcity of hitting. But I don't think they did.

At some point this reality that "bats are hard to find" seems to have become apparent to the FO. Whereupon they decided the best course was to get "creative" in the Olivera deal. I don't mind creative. My criticism is more their overlooking a central aspect of today's market (pitching versus hitting scarcity), which resulted in them getting into a position where getting creative became necessary.
 
dak said:
Not a fan of the signing, though I'm relieved at this point that we've avoided the worst case scenario. There was a chance that he would fall off a cliff after undergoing major surgery, and he seems to have avoided that. So the outcome over 4 years now looks only kinda bad.
Click to expand...

His lack of power is concerning though. If that doesn't change we could see soem years similar to his 2013 campaign offensviely.
 
sturg33 said:
He hasn't been very good this year. 1.4 WAR - which makes him slightly overpaid this season. He has been a barely above average hitter, a below average defender and a below average base runner. And this is likely to be his best season of the 4.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm with you. It's depressing to think about. Just pointing out that we (seem to have) avoided the worst case outcome.
 
smootness said:
A LF with an OBP significantly under .300 who plays horrid defense is a recipe for disaster. And adding BJ to Justin significantly reduces your return for him.

And how is the prospect of moving Heyward or Upton at the deadline had we not competed a defense for going for it? You would have gotten less in return, and in that scenario, we don't compete anyway.
Click to expand...

Looking at the deadline deals this season, I think a case can be made that we would have gotten more.

PS--I didn't like the Markakis signing, especially the length of the contract. But he's been decent offensively this season. I'm not going to bark about him.
 
sturg33 said:
I think Folty wouldn't have a prayer.

Wisler, maybe. But I also don't even consider a top 50 prospect an "impact" prospect... More like top 20 or 30.

Having said that, if you're arguing we got a whole bunch of prospects for all of our trades... well duh. That's what happens when you trade away young talent like Heyward, Upton, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, and Peraza.

The sad part is though, that Price, Cespedes and others brought back more in the deadline than we got in the offseason... not more in quantity but more quality. Hart went after quantity
Click to expand...

The heck? The Gattis deal alone brought back more than the Tigers got for Cespedes. In quality.
 
nsacpi said:
It is still early days. But surely it is not as premature to make some preliminary assessments now as it was in the first half of the season when thethe (may Allah honor him and grant him peace) and others were crowing about how brilliantly Hart's trades were turning out.
Click to expand...

Did thethe stop posting here?
 
nsacpi said:
Also the trades mostly were us sending hitting for pitching. In an era where hitting is scarce and pitching is relatively plentiful. I suppose those trades would have been ok if the "exchange rate" properly reflected the relative scarcity of hitting. But I don't think they did.

At some point this reality that "bats are hard to find" seems to have become apparent to the FO. Whereupon they decided the best course was to get "creative" in the Olivera deal. I don't mind creative. My criticism is more their overlooking a central aspect of today's market (pitching versus hitting scarcity), which resulted in them getting into a position where getting creative became necessary.
Click to expand...

The situation can still be resolved if the Braves are interested in continuing to be creative.

The Braves still have the ability to move current assets for near ML ready bats, specifically Miller, Teheran, Freeman, Maybin, Bethancourt, Peterson, etc. Moving Miller and Teheran can be replaced through FA pitching acquisition. Yes the FA pitchers would cost more but you have to view the difference spent as the monetary cost of acquiring the bats you need.

The big thing is finding the teams in need who MAY have the will to deal and also has the assets that the Braves would want in return. I like Miller to Colorado for OF Dahl, 3B McMahon and C Dom Nunez. Colorado pretty much HAS to trade for pitching or grow their own since no FA pitcher in his right mind with any options is going to sign there. And, while the Rockies aren't that close to contending, Miller has years left of control. They also can give up McMahon (one of the top 3B prospects in baseball) because they have Arrenado under control for years. They can give up Dahl (who is a bit of a gamble anyway because of injury but worth it based on projection) since they have a reasonably full OF and Dom Nunez is probably their best catching prospect but is down at low A and the Rocks have Murphy in AAA.

Getting McMahon allows you to try Olivera at 2B where his bat might make him an all star if his defense is at least adequate. Dahl gives you a CF prospect who is higher rated than any current Braves outfield prospect and would fit behind Albies overall. Nunez is a long term defensive catcher who may actually have a bat.

Teheran is a guy who may have more value at the deadline. But, I think if you find the right offer you move him now. Let's say you could get Lewis Brinson from the Rangers straight up for Teheran. I think you do it. Brinson is a prospect on the rise using his RH power bat to stand out in CF.

Then you move Freeman if you can get the right deal. Let's say you could trade Freeman to the Indians for CF Clint Frazier and 1B Bobby Bradley. The Indians aren't that far away, already have a good foundation for the OF at the ML level, has a number of OF in the minors including the higher rated Zimmer and could afford to move Bradley because of Freeman.

You keep Simmons because he is the best defensive ss in baseball and will be helpful in drawing in pitching.

You make a deal with Milwaukee by sending them Bethancourt for OF Phillips and SP Matt Garza. The Brewers might do this because they desperately want to move Garza and his contract while they have a number of ML outfielders. Bethancourt likely has no future in Atlanta and might benefit from a change of scenery and a year behind Lucroy. You might have to add a young arm such as Whelan as well to get this done but the key is the departure of Garza from Milwaukee.

Move Maybin for what you can. Peterson (and several others can be throw ins if necessary since they are likely spare parts who don't have a long term home with the Braves).

You have now cleared some payroll and moved around some more while adding cheap talent as part of the moves. Then you sign a lead guy like Price or Grienke to lead your staff as ace for the next 4-5 years, you add a project or two like Latos (or Szymardjia) with upside.

You sign or bring in a catcher with a big defensive reputation for handling and developing pitchers (don't worry about offense or throwing guys out at this stage since you have a huge investment in young pitching that needs the help).

You end up with:

CF Bourn

2B Castro (see what you have)

RF Markakis (I would trade him too if I could get anything)

1B Swisher

3B Olivera

LF Garcia (see what you have)

C Whoever

SS Simmons

Then you hope there is a market for Bourn, Swisher, Markakis etc at the deadline.

The rotation would be:

LHP Price

RHP Latos (or Szymardjia)

RHP Garza

RHP Williams Perez (see what you have, nothing to lose)

LHP Banuelos

(this allows you to put Folty, Wisler, Sims, etc in AAA for much needed seasoning)

You hope Garza develops some value at the deadline where he can be traded.

Admittedly that is likely a horrible team. BUT, after 2016, you lose Bourn and Swisher off the books (and maybe more if they can be traded such as Garza) and you get to hold on to all the talent acquired in the Heyward/Upton/Gattis/Kimbrel trade while adding offensive talent, much of which could be ready for the start of 2017.

So, to start 2017 the Braves could have an OF of Markakis, Frazier, Phillips (with Dahl, Brinson and maybe Davidson in the wings)

1B could be Bradley if he's ready, Olivera if he can't handle 2B or a FA signee signed with the freed up payroll on short term.

2B is Olivera, Castro or maybe Albies.

3B is McMahon with Ruiz and Riley in the wings.

SS is still Simmons with Albies in the wings

C is still your developmental emphasis catcher with Nunez in the wings.

Your SP would be Price, Latos, Garza (Maybe) with choices from Folty, Wisler, Banuelos, Perez, Weber, Sims, Jenkins, etc, etc.

The pen would have to be filled out some but you have a lot of viable possibles with Viz, Simmons, Rodriguez, McKirahan, Winkler, Withrow.

The thing is you move most of your payroll with major investments going into 2017 in Price, Simmons, Markakis, Latos, Olivera and maybe Garza for a total of $50-$60M with another $50-$60M available to add needed parts and pay for the balance of the team who are mostly at ML minimum or close to it and not close to arbitration. Strasbourg would be a FA available and could be pursued assuming he is desirable.

This is an Example of my thinking. Obviously, some of the deals might not be viable since it takes two to tango. However, the spirit of the idea is there other deals could be possible (such as Freeman to the Pirates for Meadows and Bell).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top