Miller market 'hot'

Enscheff said:
I think a deal based around Miller/Markakis for Soler/Castro might be something to consider.

Castro could play SS and make Aybar trade bait, or he could play 2B. He is still young and could improve.

The Cubs could sign Heyward and play him In CF with Schwarber and Markakis at the corners. Baez would play 2B.

Some money or other minor parts might have to go either way, but the 4 headline players makes at least some sense.
Click to expand...

We are morons if we take on Castro. His contract isn't crippling, but it's definitely not a good use of money, and we'd have him until 2020.
 
smootness said:
We are morons if we take on Castro. His contract isn't crippling, but it's definitely not a good use of money, and we'd have him until 2020.
Click to expand...

I think if you headlined Nick/miller and Soler/Conteras then you would have to take on some bad money.. not castro per se... but something.. that or send another B type prospect..
 
bravesfanMatt said:
I think if you headlined Nick/miller and Soler/Conteras then you would have to take on some bad money.. not castro per se... but something.. that or send another B type prospect..
Click to expand...

Then send the B prospect or don't make the deal. The last thing I want to do is see us put in so much work to shed bad contracts and then take on Castro's. He would be dead weight for 4 years.

At this point, if we're taking on money it should only be for 2016, period.
 
smootness said:
Then send the B prospect or don't make the deal. The last thing I want to do is see us put in so much work to shed bad contracts and then take on Castro's. He would be dead weight for 4 years.

At this point, if we're taking on money it should only be for 2016, period.
Click to expand...

that is what I am saying.. I would rather lose a prospect in this deal than 4 years at 40 million.. even if he has potential.. I personally feel Castro is a lazy defender.. just not fond of him.. I am not completely familiar with the Cubs payroll so I don't know of any bad contracts they are trying to get rid of.. they cleared Jackson last season.. isn't there another pitcher or someone who is owed money the next two years..
 
striker42 said:
I'm inclined to move Olivera back to third and get Soler. I don't see Olivera's bat playing well in left. We pretty much have to have him hit best case scenario for him to be worth his paycheck there. At third we have a little more room for error.

I doubt he'll ever be a good defensive third baseman but maybe he could be a mediocre one.
Click to expand...

Right. I think moving him to the outfield is folly. The footage I saw of him prior to his arrival lead me to believe he'd actually be better at second than third. He was a good, instinctual 2B despite his size. My personal experience is if you can play second, you can play third. The throw's a little longer, but it's otherwise much less demanding.

Also, I'm not seeing Coppy being particularly inclined to ask for infielders in exchange for Miller. Several of his asks have been outfielders.
 
The pull back yesterday in the rumors is actually kind of suspicious to me. You go from hearing about all these people the Braves are asking for to having several guys saying "No, the Braves are keeping Miller because they're not getting offers they like" and this right before the winter meetings.

Here's my conspiracy theory. The Braves have at least one team they've had legitimate negotiations with. My guess would be the Cubs. I think they like Soler a lot but want more. I think the Cubs want to offer just Soler with maybe a scrub prospect. So yesterday the Braves spread the rumor that Soler isn't that valuable to them because the OF is full. In reality, they aren't wanting to let a bat with the potential of Soler escape and so aren't really concerned with the OF being full.

I think the Cubs are involved in the same posturing as we saw a rumor of them saying they want to hold onto Soler and instead move Baez or Castro.

Personally, I think there is a greater than 50% chance that the Braves send Miller to the Cubs for a Soler centered package next week. This is following the classic posturing timeline to me. Player appears as being talked about in trades. Specific team is linked with a specific player on each side being said to be coveted. Then suddenly the rumors of one team not being that interested followed by rumors of the other. Add in the bonus of the timeline fitting the winter meetings schedule.
 
striker42 said:
The pull back yesterday in the rumors is actually kind of suspicious to me. You go from hearing about all these people the Braves are asking for to having several guys saying "No, the Braves are keeping Miller because they're not getting offers they like" and this right before the winter meetings.

Here's my conspiracy theory. The Braves have at least one team they've had legitimate negotiations with. My guess would be the Cubs. I think they like Soler a lot but want more. I think the Cubs want to offer just Soler with maybe a scrub prospect. So yesterday the Braves spread the rumor that Soler isn't that valuable to them because the OF is full. In reality, they aren't wanting to let a bat with the potential of Soler escape and so aren't really concerned with the OF being full.

I think the Cubs are involved in the same posturing as we saw a rumor of them saying they want to hold onto Soler and instead move Baez or Castro.

Personally, I think there is a greater than 50% chance that the Braves send Miller to the Cubs for a Soler centered package next week. This is following the classic posturing timeline to me. Player appears as being talked about in trades. Specific team is linked with a specific player on each side being said to be coveted. Then suddenly the rumors of one team not being that interested followed by rumors of the other. Add in the bonus of the timeline fitting the winter meetings schedule.
Click to expand...

Not a bad conspiracy theory. I agree that there's more than meets the eye. I'm not that enamored with Soler. I have this nebulous bias against Cuban players (not in a racial sense) that steers me away in general, but looking at his stat line, I'm seeing a guy with lousy defense who signals a return to a feast-or-famine offense we supposedly wanted to abandon. I suppose one can argue that at least there would be an occasional feast, which we lacked in 2015, but I'm not seeing what the hype is about.

I said it in an earlier post. I really think Miller is on the cusp of really elevating his game. 2015 may have been an aberration, but if he can maintain his improved GB/FB and find a way to keep his pitch counts down, he's going to be a bargain for the next few years. I don't let him go unless there's more quality players/prospects along with Soler coming back.

I also think the Cubs will be in big-time on Heyward and it would be kind of odd to see both Miller and Heyward together in Chicago. I'm guessing Heyward may not be returning to St. Louis because I think that deal would have been done by now if he were. Casey Close is nudging into Scott Boras territory without the hubris.
 
Apparently, St. Louis was a distant second to the Red Sox in the bidding for Price. They may be prioritizing pitching with Lynne out. But maybe Heyward is their second choice after Price.
 
What we need is feast and feast offense, guys with power and hitting ability with manageable strike outs. The famine that was Melvin, Uggla, CJ and to certain extents of time Justin appears to have swung the opinion of the board into thinking that power doesn't matter that much. But it does. What you want is power without the bad K's.

Last year, the Braves finished Dead Last in MLB in HR hit, 20% behind the Marlins and that was with power contributions from KJ and Uribe that were at higher rates than what should have been expected from them.
 
The Astros and the Cubs (the teams every rebuilding franchise is holding up as the gold standards) were #1 and #2 in Ks last year. The Braves were #3 in Ks in 2013, and still had a respectable offense on route to winning 96 games. They then went on to have the 4th most Ks in 2014, and had the worst offense Atlanta has seen in about 80 years. Last year they were #29 in Ks, and had the worst offense in baseball by a pretty significant margin.

Ks themselves don't lead to bad offense, and I'm not sure why folks insist on trying to make that connection. The Braves have proved that conclusively over the last 2 seasons. Haven't any of you been watching? I don't blame any of you if you haven't been.

A lineup can certainly flourish with a guy like Soler hitting 4th with 30 HRs and 150+ Ks. A team can NOT flourish with guys like Uggla, Simmons, BJ, and CJ putting up sub-.300 OBPs and very little power in everyday roles.

I think a lot of posters around here need to brush up on exactly whats makes an offense score runs. Here's a hint...it isn't avoiding Ks.
 
Enscheff said:
The Astros and the Cubs (the teams every rebuilding franchise is holding up as the gold standards) were #1 and #2 in Ks last year. The Braves were #3 in Ks in 2013, and still had a respectable offense on route to winning 96 games. They then went on to have the 4th most Ks in 2014, and had the worst offense Atlanta has seen in about 80 years. Last year they were #29 in Ks, and had the worst offense in baseball by a pretty significant margin.

Ks themselves don't lead to bad offense, and I'm not sure why folks insist on trying to make that connection. The Braves have proved that conclusively over the last 2 seasons. Haven't any of you been watching? I don't blame any of you if you haven't been.

A lineup can certainly flourish with a guy like Soler hitting 4th with 30 HRs and 150+ Ks. A team can NOT flourish with guys like Uggla, Simmons, BJ, and CJ putting up sub-.300 OBPs and very little power in everyday roles.

I think a lot of posters around here need to brush up on exactly whats makes an offense score runs. Here's a hint...it isn't avoiding Ks.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY. K's PLUS power is likely OK. K's without power = bad.

But the best offense is what I think of as a traditional offense: Get average, OBP, a little speed and defense from your SS, CF and maybe 2B (limit the K's and one of those three bats LO). Get power from all and average (from at least some) from 1B, RF, LF, 3B and C. Catcher is more important defensively (framing, calling, managing on the field, controlling the running game) than any position outside of short stop (and may supersede SS if the staff is not a veteran staff).

At the risk of turning this into a Heyward debate, IMO, that's why Heyward (and Markakis) isn't nearly as valuable as most want to believe. His lack of power at a position where you need power strains the rest of the lineup to find the missing power over the long haul. Anything can work over short periods. But, as you start trying to find power as you build an offense, having a lack of power at a power position limits your options.
 
MLBTR has note that Colorado is interested in Miller but hasn't talked with Atlanta "in a long time."

If that is factual, then Coppy needs to pull his head out and get on the phone. A Miller for Dahl, McMahon and Nunez trade would be better than anything he is likely to get out of the Cubs.

In a related note, MLBTR has a blurb about the Cubs increased interest in Lackey which is their way of telling Coppy you better take what we've offered and be happy about it....
 
They can have Lackey if they want but I wouldn't lower my stance as far as Shelby goes. Hold onto him if nobody steps up. But on Colorado, yeah I'd be all over them. McMahon is legit.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
MLBTR has note that Colorado is interested in Miller but hasn't talked with Atlanta "in a long time."

If that is factual, then Coppy needs to pull his head out and get on the phone. A Miller for Dahl, McMahon and Nunez trade would be better than anything he is likely to get out of the Cubs.

In a related note, MLBTR has a blurb about the Cubs increased interest in Lackey which is their way of telling Coppy you better take what we've offered and be happy about it....
Click to expand...

There's the old adage that buyers make calls and sellers take calls
 
Chico said:
There's the old adage that buyers make calls and sellers take calls
Click to expand...

Which I don't agree with. There's a school of thought that reaching out to another team about a player that you want to trade puts you in a weak position. But, that is only true if your options are limited.

I would be on the phone with Colorado saying: We have identified you as a team that might want to trade for Miller and has what we are looking for as a return in any such trade. You guys need young controllable pitching. Miller is that. We need 3B, OF, Middle Infielders, and Catchers, you guys have that.

We're not here to ask you for anything that you can't part with. For instance, we know you won't part with Arenado but since you have him, and under control for many more years, then we need McMahon as part of the deal. BUT, McMahon of course alone isn't enough. Since you have a pretty set OF, we would need Dahl. We also want Nunez who is a young catcher likely 3-4 years away to round out the deal.

And go from there. They already know you are talking with Chicago and you have a number of other conversations ongoing. It's how a deal is made. You don't ask for anything they CAN'T give up but you make it hurt enough and get quantity and quality.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
What we need is feast and feast offense, guys with power and hitting ability with manageable strike outs. The famine that was Melvin, Uggla, CJ and to certain extents of time Justin appears to have swung the opinion of the board into thinking that power doesn't matter that much. But it does. What you want is power without the bad K's.

Last year, the Braves finished Dead Last in MLB in HR hit, 20% behind the Marlins and that was with power contributions from KJ and Uribe that were at higher rates than what should have been expected from them.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that. Some players can accommodate strike-outs because the return over time is worth it. I'm just wondering if Soler is one of those guys.

I agree with HH's subsequent post that points toward a synergy of different types of players that most effective offenses have. It starts with good ABs, which usually leads to a solid OBP, but is then mixed with power (more important) and speed to have a team multiple ways to win games. I'm one who believes that batting average, while misleading, is still important as well.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Which I don't agree with. There's a school of thought that reaching out to another team about a player that you want to trade puts you in a weak position. But, that is only true if your options are limited.

I would be on the phone with Colorado saying: We have identified you as a team that might want to trade for Miller and has what we are looking for as a return in any such trade. You guys need young controllable pitching. Miller is that. We need 3B, OF, Middle Infielders, and Catchers, you guys have that.

We're not here to ask you for anything that you can't part with. For instance, we know you won't part with Arenado but since you have him, and under control for many more years, then we need McMahon as part of the deal. BUT, McMahon of course alone isn't enough. Since you have a pretty set OF, we would need Dahl. We also want Nunez who is a young catcher likely 3-4 years away to round out the deal.

And go from there. They already know you are talking with Chicago and you have a number of other conversations ongoing. It's how a deal is made. You don't ask for anything they CAN'T give up but you make it hurt enough and get quantity and quality.
Click to expand...

There are different ways to go about it. We may not be far away from a good package from the Cubs, for example, with the plan to get an offer from them, then go to the Rockies and say, 'Here's what we've got from the Cubs, beat it if you want Miller.'

You just don't know. The fact that we haven't talked to the Rockies in a while doesn't necessarily mean that a) we're not putting in the work or b) that we don't want to eventually go back to them. Timing is always key in negotiations like this.
 
The Cubs are pretty hot on Lackey at the moment. Talking two- and three-year possibilities.

So much for miller, maybe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top