Thay could be the case but closers, especially someone like Kimbrel, tend to be overrated compared to what they actually bring to a team. No doubt the Padres got a good deal there.
Maybe it is the Braves FO that just keeps screwing up.
Miller market 'hot'
- Thread starter Hawk
- Start date
Thay could be the case but closers, especially someone like Kimbrel, tend to be overrated compared to what they actually bring to a team. No doubt the Padres got a good deal there.
Maybe it is the Braves FO that just keeps screwing up.
Fine, but the fact of the matter is the Braves traded Kimbrel when he was more valuable and got a lesser return. Part of the reason for that is they wanted to shed BJs money, which they are now wasting on guys like Norris, JJ and Beckham. So even that bit of "value" was rather pointless.
Would you rather have the Padres return for Kimbrel while still paying BJ? I'm pretty sure I would. The Braves are going to be absolutely wretched for the next 2-3 years, so BJ may as well been a part of it...he still offered some sort of upside after all. At least they would have had a potential impact bat in the system instead of another MOR lottery ticket.
It all goes back to the current series of trades/signings not following a logical plan in any way. It is very disappointing to say the least.
I guess we will find out once the Miller trade goes down. If the return is anything less than a legit position player (not Olivera) we pretty much have our answer.
sturg33
I
I mean... Uggla's money + Markakis' money was $24M
We were still paying Uggla's contract. And had other bad contracts while needing several upgrades to the roster. For a team with a roughly 100 million payroll, it wasn't feasible.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
It is somewhat irrelevant to consider whether the Braves could have paid Heyward 25M or whatever last year. I believe his salary was 9M in 2015. The question is whether they could have carried that salary in 2016 and beyond. No?
We keep hearing from the front office about enhanced revenue streams and higher payrolls in 2017 and beyond from the new stadium. So the only year where it might have been an issue is 2016. I believe after the Maybin trade we would have easily been able to accommodate such a contract. To say nothing of the option for back-loading it.
We keep hearing from the front office about enhanced revenue streams and higher payrolls in 2017 and beyond from the new stadium. So the only year where it might have been an issue is 2016. I believe after the Maybin trade we would have easily been able to accommodate such a contract. To say nothing of the option for back-loading it.
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
Olney: As with other players not named Freddie Freeman, the Braves will listen to offers on Julio Teheran, at a time when pitching prices are high.
UNCBlue012
Well-known member
MLB TRADE RUMORS: Jeff Samardzija Has Purportedly Received $100MM Offer mlbtraderumors.com/2015/12/jeff-s…
5/100 would be pretty consistant with the current market
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
I keep saying the BJ savings allowed us to trade for Touki, and everyone seems to keep ignoring that. We absolutely did not need the BJ savings to add JJ, Norris, and Beckham, so that's not what it allowed us to do. Plus, it gave us room to turn CJ's 2017 money into 2016 money, so we now have both BJ's and CJ's savings to use in 2017. Obviously we will have to wait to see how we use it, but we still have savings there.
Second, the Padres' return basically centers around two guys. Allen and Asuaje aren't bad pieces, but they also mean little. A 24-year-old who OPS'd about .700 in AA and an 8th-round draft pick. Allen has potential, but his ceiling isn't high.
So the trade centers around Guerra and Margot...both definitely good prospects, but Guerra would have been redundant for us with Albies (and Albies is better), and Margot and Wisler are pretty similar in value at the time of the trades, plus Wisler will play a big role for us starting this year. So while you can look at our return as Wisler/pick/money and it doesn't look great, you can also look at it as Wisler/Riley/Touki and it suddenly looks better than what the Red Sox gave up.
And again, you simply can't take one bad deal and assume we could have gotten the same kind of deal. The Red Sox undoubtedly overpaid for Kimbrel; there is no guarantee at all that anyone was willing to offer something similar even if we had kept BJ, especially considering that the current Red Sox FO is new.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
I am fine with the return for Kimbrel. I like Wisler. however, I have a problem saying Riley was a part of that trade. The FO had no idea who they were going to get when they made that trade. you can't really say for certainty that we wouldn't have Riley if it wasn't for that trade.
I would be fine with saying the Kimbrel trade helped us get another draft pick.. just not putting a name along side it.. that just seems like you are thinking as if nothing changes if something did in fact change.
It is all kind of silly anyway. we can't change it.. might as well enjoy what we did get.
But this is kind of my point. I'm not going to get into hypotheticals about where Riley possibly could have been drafted if we didn't have the 41st pick to take him there, or the fact that we didn't know we were going to Riley, etc. etc.
The bottom line is that we loved what we saw in Riley, and the 41st pick allowed us to get him there while also being able to take Soroka at 28 and not having to reach for him there. So you can say it gave us Riley, or you can say it allowed us to get Soroka, or whatever. But the bottom line is that we got the 41st pick in the deal and we got Austin Riley with it. Just like we got savings from BJ in the deal and we used it to get Touki. That is what we know, and it's impossible to know what would have happened otherwise. It was a really, really good deal.
Decent article by Fangraphs explaining how Miller might be on the verge of busting out and becoming a 5+ WAR pitcher:
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/
I say extend him if teams don't pony up.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shelby-miller-pseudo-prospect/
I say extend him if teams don't pony up.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
There's a number of reasons it's a gamble. First off his power. His minor league iso was much lower than what he's done in the majors. Not that players don't develop power in the majors. That would be a lie to say, but in general they don't improve as drastically as he has his last 2 seasons, especially if they were college aged. It would be like if TLS was posting a mid 1s iso. I wouldn't expect that to maintain.
Though again, I like him. I think he's a valueable player. I'd trade Miller for him. But I don't think he's better or more valuable than Heyward. Only reason you make that point is his contract right now. But I'd take Heyward at Market cost and 2 years younger than 3 years below Market for Pollock. That's just me.
sturg33
I
We are talking about 2016 and beyond... Uggla was off the books. The Braves didn't want Heyward bc they don't seem to understand what is valuable in the current baseball environment.
But we did get Markakis and Olivera so...
bravesfanforlife88
Well-known member
My best guess is that the Braves looked at Heyward and made the decision that they did not want to spend $20+ million on him for the length of the contract. Instead they figured that they would spend the $20+ on 2 or more players to try and improve the team. I actually love the trade and I liked it at the time. It is working wonders right now.
I would rather keep him considering what we'd likely get back.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
We trade him if we're blown away with an offer. WOrst case scenario for us is he gets hurt and loses value. Best case he keeps pitchign like he did or even better and we're holding onto a massive trade chip. I would be super passive about trading him. If we don't get a premium return (I don't consider Soler premium return)
If the Cubs would give up Addison Russell for Shelby then I'd listen. Soler just strikes out too much .He should bring plenty of pop, but I would rather go with someone safer, like Russell. Who's shown much more power already.