Around Baseball Offseason Thread

clvclv said:
Strictly a stab in the dark on my part, but the only thing I've been able to attribute the inclusion of Peraza to is that they insisted he be in the deal IF we wanted the arms we got plus the pick. I haven't read that specific comment anywhere, but it's the only thing that would seem to make any sense. Both organizations' hype machines worked their regular magic, and I'd assume the Dodgers correctly read our internal reservations about Peraza - many here had long pointed out the concerns about his ability to succeed as strictly a slap-hitter, and that success would be tougher against the more advanced pitching.

I just assume that they (the Dodgers) already knew Olivera was going to have a tough time sticking on the dirt, and that (if nothing else) Peraza could be a REALLY good super-utility guy for them. Call it being a "Johns-Apologist" or whatever someone likes - I think the deal was pretty even overall. We got a bat (that we desperately needed) that we were really high on, regardless of where he plays. We also got two arms with high ceilings PLUS a pick that will fall in the range where we got Herbert and Riley. I know everybody's getting tired of hearing about pitching, pitching, pitching, but it's just what the organization has always done well. What it breaks down to (for me) is Wood for Olivera, (the maddening at times) Avilan and Johnson for Rodriguez and Bird (both with significantly higher upsides and longer control), and Peraza for the draft pick. For me - IF we hit on the draft pick, it's at worst a wash. Just an educated guess, but I feel like the organization's committed to giving Peterson the chance to prove himself this season without looking over his shoulder at Peraza. If he can improve and Albies continues to grow and can be fast tracked, you've put yourself in position to see if someone will significantly overpay for Andrelton.

I don't mean to badmouth yet another former Brave, but I just don't think the organization viewed Peraza as a legitimate option at SS.
Click to expand...

I think this is more illusion than reality. The Braves reputation as a pitching organization was built on the backs of Maddux (FA signee), Smoltz (trade), Glavine (2nd round), Millwood (mid round), etc.

A lot of the really early re-build first rounders such as Avery, Merker, etc paid dividends but they should have been expected to do that.

What the Braves have been really good at is developing significant quantity of pitching, not really quality, but that should be expected with an organizational philosophy that has leaned heavily to pitching...
 
50PoundHead said:
That's basically how I deconstruct the trade as well and agree that the Braves would likely have kept Peraza at SS if they believed he could develop into a major league SS.

The guts of the trade was Wood for Olivera. We'll see how it works out.
Click to expand...

I don't really have an issue with the fact that we traded Wood and Peraza. I wanted to trade they both. My issue is that I would have preferred a return that was high end minor league talent, even if it was a year or two away. One additional drawback to Olivera is his cost which isn't a lot but still significant during a rebuild.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I don't really have an issue with the fact that we traded Wood and Peraza. I wanted to trade they both. My issue is that I would have preferred a return that was high end minor league talent, even if it was a year or two away. One additional drawback to Olivera is his cost which isn't a lot but still significant during a rebuild.
Click to expand...

Again, I have no big problem with Olivera. I just thought the trade was a bit on the impulsive side and I was all over Wren when he made moves like that and in the spirit of fairness, I have to ladle out the same criticism when the ranch hands at the Triple J exhibit a similar pattern.
 
So if the Red Sox are the team that has won the posting fee for Byung-Ho Park and they sign him to play first, do we check in with them to see if how much salary they are willing to swallow to move Pablo Sandoval or Hanley Ramirez?
 
nsacpi said:
So if the Red Sox are the team that has won the posting fee for Byung-Ho Park and they sign him to play first, do we check in with them to see if how much salary they are willing to swallow to move Pablo Sandoval or Hanley Ramirez?
Click to expand...

I don't think a whale could swallow Pablo.
 
nsacpi said:
So if the Red Sox are the team that has won the posting fee for Byung-Ho Park and they sign him to play first, do we check in with them to see if how much salary they are willing to swallow to move Pablo Sandoval or Hanley Ramirez?
Click to expand...

Jeff Passan reported last night that the Red Sox did not win the bidding on Park. Still, they are a good team for the Braves to speak with as they scrounge for options at 3B and C. With Swihart as the blue-chipper, maybe they would be open to moving Christian Vazquez. Sandoval is not a championship-caliber player, but the FO may be able to look past that if BOS is desperate to move him. They have a long-term option at 3B in Devers and possibly a bridge option in Brock Holt.
 
dak said:
Jeff Passan reported last night that the Red Sox did not win the bidding on Park. Still, they are a good team for the Braves to speak with as they scrounge for options at 3B and C. With Swihart as the blue-chipper, maybe they would be open to moving Christian Vazquez. Sandoval is not a championship-caliber player, but the FO may be able to look past that if BOS is desperate to move him. They have a long-term option at 3B in Devers and possibly a bridge option in Brock Holt.
Click to expand...

I've suggested Vazquez a couple of times. He's kind of a risk proposition, too, since he's a defense-first catcher coming off of TJ surgery. Still, he fills the bill in a lot of ways (right down to the TJ, amirite). They might not be inclined to sell low on him, though.

I'd take Sandoval if the money were remotely reasonable. He'd be insurance for Ruiz/Peterson and be another guy who could potentially bridge to the position talent in the low minors now.

Hanley is a dicier proposition, but the upside is that he's already run Fredi out of one NL East city, so maybe lightning could strike twice.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I don't really have an issue with the fact that we traded Wood and Peraza. I wanted to trade they both. My issue is that I would have preferred a return that was high end minor league talent, even if it was a year or two away. One additional drawback to Olivera is his cost which isn't a lot but still significant during a rebuild.
Click to expand...

You think the $6+ million/year for Olivera is exorbitant (when we're STARVING for offense), yet you think it's a good idea to spend $6 million/year on Tyler Clippard in your master plan???

Wow.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think this is more illusion than reality. The Braves reputation as a pitching organization was built on the backs of Maddux (FA signee), Smoltz (trade), Glavine (2nd round), Millwood (mid round), etc.

A lot of the really early re-build first rounders such as Avery, Merker, etc paid dividends but they should have been expected to do that.

What the Braves have been really good at is developing significant quantity of pitching, not really quality, but that should be expected with an organizational philosophy that has leaned heavily to pitching...
Click to expand...

Hence the desire to return to "The Braves' Way", where you have tons of potential options at some point. I also hate to throw dirt on the Wren philosophy, but he drafted very few decent arms during his tenure - completely whiffing on many.

The Good:

Kimbrel (2008), Minor (2009), Sims and Wood (2012)

The Bad:

Cory Gearrin was the earliest arm taken in 2007 (4th Round) - Jon Gilmore was selected 33rd overall when Jordan Zimmerman (67) and Danny Duffy were available before Brandon Hicks was taken at #108. Corey Kluber went 4 picks ahead of Gearrin.

Brett DeVall was taken at #40 in 2008 ahead of Wade Miley and Tyson Ross before we took Stovall and Spruill in Round 2. They hit on Kimbrel in Round 3, but whiffed again on Jacob Thompson in Round 5.

Minor was another hit in 2009, but his selection was widely panned when it was made. Shelby Miller (yeah, that guy) went at #19, James Paxton (#37), Tyler Skaggs, (#40), and Garrett Richards (#42) all went later.

Wren's crew drafted Matt Lipka (#35) ahead of Noah Syndergaard (38), Taijuan Walker (#43), Tyrell Jenkins (#50), before drafting Todd Cunningham (#53) when Vincent Velasquez (#58), Jimmy Nelson (#64), and Drew Smyly (#68) were all available before they took Simba. They took Joe Leonard next at #101 when A. J. Cole (#116), Sam Dyson (#126), and Paxton (#132) were out there.

They took Sean Gilmartin (#28) rather than Henry Owens (#38), Michael Fulmer (#44), Blake Snell (#52), and Daniel Norris (#74) before picking Nick Ahmed at #85 in 2011.

Lucas Sims and Wood were hits in the first two rounds 2012, but Bryan De La Rosa (3rd - #116), Justin Black (4th - 149), Blake Brown (5th - 179), and Josh Elander (6th - 209) (and many others) were taken in a weak draft when finding ANY arms should've been more of a focus.

Those are misses that previous Braves' drafts that were focused on pitching first just didn't make. The Johns are now trying to make up for an extended period where the focus obviously wasn't on Pitchers. Is that ultimately Wren's fault? Who knows? The fact remains that his drafts got away from the idea that you need a higher volume of arms - both because of the flameouts and injuries, and to be used as additional trade chips.
 
clvclv said:
You think the $6+ million/year for Olivera is exorbitant (when we're STARVING for offense), yet you think it's a good idea to spend $6 million/year on Tyler Clippard in your master plan???

Wow.
Click to expand...

I did a double take on that as well. Olivera (washed up, positionless, etc...) is a lot of things, but expensive is not one of them.
 
Tapate50 said:
I did a double take on that as well. Olivera (washed up, positionless, etc...) is a lot of things, but expensive is not one of them.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The problems Olivera's price need to be the price we gave up to get him. While what we're paying him isn't insignificant, if Olivera was a free agent and was willing to accept what we're paying him, you do it every time. However, the combination of the money and the talent we gave up...
 
clvclv said:
Hence the desire to return to "The Braves' Way", where you have tons of potential options at some point. I also hate to throw dirt on the Wren philosophy, but he drafted very few decent arms during his tenure - completely whiffing on many.

The Good:
Kimbrel (2008), Minor (2009), Sims and Wood (2012)

The Bad:
Cory Gearrin was the earliest arm taken in 2007 (4th Round) - Jon Gilmore was selected 33rd overall when Jordan Zimmerman (67) and Danny Duffy were available before Brandon Hicks was taken at #108. Corey Kluber went 4 picks ahead of Gearrin.

Brett DeVall was taken at #40 in 2008 ahead of Wade Miley and Tyson Ross before we took Stovall and Spruill in Round 2. They hit on Kimbrel in Round 3, but whiffed again on Jacob Thompson in Round 5.

Minor was another hit in 2009, but his selection was widely panned when it was made. Shelby Miller (yeah, that guy) went at #19, James Paxton (#37), Tyler Skaggs, (#40), and Garrett Richards (#42) all went later.

Wren's crew drafted Matt Lipka (#35) ahead of Noah Syndergaard (38), Taijuan Walker (#43), Tyrell Jenkins (#50), before drafting Todd Cunningham (#53) when Vincent Velasquez (#58), Jimmy Nelson (#64), and Drew Smyly (#68) were all available before they took Simba. They took Joe Leonard next at #101 when A. J. Cole (#116), Sam Dyson (#126), and Paxton (#132) were out there.

They took Sean Gilmartin (#28) rather than Henry Owens (#38), Michael Fulmer (#44), Blake Snell (#52), and Daniel Norris (#74) before picking Nick Ahmed at #85 in 2011.

Lucas Sims and Wood were hits in the first two rounds 2012, but Bryan De La Rosa (3rd - #116), Justin Black (4th - 149), Blake Brown (5th - 179), and Josh Elander (6th - 209) (and many others) were taken in a weak draft when finding ANY arms should've been more of a focus.

Those are misses that previous Braves' drafts that were focused on pitching first just didn't make. The Johns are now trying to make up for an extended period where the focus obviously wasn't on Pitchers. Is that ultimately Wren's fault? Who knows? The fact remains that his drafts got away from the idea that you need a higher volume of arms - both because of the flameouts and injuries, and to be used as additional trade chips.
Click to expand...

You could play that exercise with every team
 
clvclv said:
You think the $6+ million/year for Olivera is exorbitant (when we're STARVING for offense), yet you think it's a good idea to spend $6 million/year on Tyler Clippard in your master plan???

Wow.
Click to expand...

Olivera is unproven and has no set position to play AND I have to assume that they are bringing him in to be here long term.

Clippard would be brought in as part of adding the veteran presence needed to stabilize the pen and fend off those who at least want some illusion for trying to contend. In my plan, I used Clippard, and his projected salary, as part of the moves to bring a veteran stabilizing force to the pen, with every intention of moving him if needed down the road.

To be honest, I'm not convinced that adding ANY pen help this offseason is necessary or wise since there are so many returning from injury and since Folty and ManBan are likely headed for the pen. But, since the J's have pointed to the pen as an area to be fixed, I included that in my plan as something that could be done and STILL do all the other things that I wanted to do.
 
Tapate50 said:
I did a double take on that as well. Olivera (washed up, positionless, etc...) is a lot of things, but expensive is not one of them.
Click to expand...

He's not expensive. But in the context of what you are trying to do which is build a team that is good in 2017 and very good for years beyond, it is puzzling and DOES tie up financing that could be used elsewhere.

Now, it makes perfect sense if he comes in next year, plays a really decent LF, hits .285, 25 with an OBP of .350 and you trade him for a couple of long term top end bats who you have at ML minimum for a couple of years before they get to be as expensive as Olivera is before he even steps foot on the field. But, that's not what will happen. If he does well, the Braves keep him and he likely quickly loses ability because of age. If he doesn't do well then the trade was a bust.

The point was, and I think it was missed which is my fault for not being clearer, is that I would have preferred that Wood and Peralta be traded for high end minor league talent that already has a position and that would be controlled at ML minimum for a while allowing you to use that money early as part of the rebuild process.

Almost at the same time the Braves were moving Wood, the Brewers moved Gomez an Fiers to Houston for a top 50 OF in Phillips and a top 100 OF in Santana and two pitchers of similar quality to what the Braves got from the Mets for Uribe and Johnson.

Gomez has injury issues (the Mets nixed a completed trade for him due to medicals) and Fiers is a 31 YO with only a 2 year track record.

Would a Wood, Maybin and Peraza trade have netted what Houston sent Milwaukee? I think yes. Would that return have been better than what they got for Olivera? I say without doubt because you get two near ready outfielders who will likely be as good or better than Olivera PLUS you save the $4/6/6.5M in 16, 17 and 18 while Phillips and Santana are likely costing you minimum, minimum, $2-3M each during those years. It is a trade off, assuming Olivera is still productive in 19 and 20 and assuming that Phillips and Santana are equally productive then the tables turn as Olivera would be relatively cheap in comparison to those two in 19 and 20. BUT, you can't just consider Olivera alone in 19, 20 then because under the scenario above you have Phillips and Santana filling two holes for you while Olivera only fills one. So, you would have to include a hypothetical player along with Olivera vs Phillips/Santana.

But the big point for me was that in the middle of a rebuild, it would have been nice to have that extra $3-5M per year, with no loss in production and quite possibly some gain, for 16, 17 and 18 vs tying it up on a player who had no position when the trade was made and had both injury and age concerns.
 
sturg33 said:
Does anyone actually think Olivera is a 25 HR hitter with 350 OBP? I don't see it.
Click to expand...

He probably isn't which makes the trade even more puzzling and his relative expense higher. To me, Olivera is the kind of guy you add if you need just one more piece on your way to contention. That is obviously NOT where the Braves are right now.
 
dak said:
Another possible 3B trade angle . . .

[TW]663745883142545408[/TW]
Click to expand...

Which is why it's always comical when posters have to back away from the ledge after screaming the sky is falling because there are no available options at certain positions every October and November.

A Folty for Plouffe deal sure would look pretty sweet, no?

Suddenly looks a lot more formidable than what we ran out there last year and would cost a whole lot less than bidding on Heyward/Upton/Cespedes. Sign Wieters, move Markakis back to the #2 spot and Olivera to the #6 spot and you have the makings of a pretty good offense.

CF- Maybin, RF- Markakis, 1B- Freeman, 3B- Plouffe, C- Wieters, LF- Olivera, 2B- Peterson, SS- Simmons

Would give you your bridge to the next CF (presumably Smith), 3B (Ruiz), C (presumably Herbert), and plenty of time to see if Albies is a potential viable replacement for Simba if you tried to get a haul for him.
 
clvclv said:
Which is why it's always comical when posters have to back away from the ledge after screaming the sky is falling because there are no available options at certain positions every October and November.

A Folty for Plouffe deal sure would look pretty sweet, no?
Click to expand...

I think posters are more angry that the front office completely missed on it's evaluation of Olivera's ability to play 3b. Now we're stuck with 5 outfielders making good money, with a prospect waiting (Smith), and no realistic internal option at 3B... so now we have to use real assets to plug the hole at 3b, which was supposed to have been accomplished 4 months ago with Olivera
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top