What is Inciarte worth? And is he worth keeping?

Braves1976 said:
That's true, but the other two players in the deal are very good parts to it too and all three together made it a great trade.

PS: What is surprising to me is that Arizona gave up so much after turning down this offer: "@Ken_Rosenthal #Braves came back with Miller and Arodys Vizcaino for Pollock and Aaron Blair. AZ again said no." Arizona clearly is going all-in now and was willing to give up even more just to keep Pollock. I'll take keeping Viz and getting Inciarte and Swanson any day over Pollock!
Click to expand...

ME TOO. Easily. I think this sets us up so nicely moving forward. I'm still in shock when I think about it.

That being said, I don't trade Vizcaino. I think he has the stuff to be our closer for a long time. If someone gives us a great package for him and another guy, then of course I consider, but I don't shop him.
 
Just a couple general thoughts:

The jury is still out on the Simmons trade, but it's hard not to like it from to the Braves' perspective in light of the Miller trade. We got a guy who will be under control for longer, for cheaper, who has a decent chance to be better than Simmons, and in that Simmons deal we added a SP who has a chance to be our best pitcher once we are contenders. I was concerned about SS after the Simmons trade because I've always seen Albies as more of a 2B, but I think it's clear the FO was already targeting Swanson at that point. So it was an opportunity to sell high on Simmons and get a very good SP prospect while not losing much since we planned to get Simmons' replacement elsewhere.

And I think it's obvious the Braves never really wanted Pollock. The return we got makes more sense for us, and by asking for Pollock for so long, it likely made it easier for the D-Backs to eventually replace him in the deal with Inciarte and Swanson. A master stroke from Coppy.
 
smootness said:
Just a couple general thoughts:

The jury is still out on the Simmons trade, but it's hard not to like it from to the Braves' perspective in light of the Miller trade. We got a guy who will be under control for longer, for cheaper, who has a decent chance to be better than Simmons, and in that Simmons deal we added a SP who has a chance to be our best pitcher once we are contenders. I was concerned about SS after the Simmons trade because I've always seen Albies as more of a 2B, but I think it's clear the FO was already targeting Swanson at that point. So it was an opportunity to sell high on Simmons and get a very good SP prospect while not losing much since we planned to get Simmons' replacement elsewhere.

And I think it's obvious the Braves never really wanted Pollock. The return we got makes more sense for us, and by asking for Pollock for so long, it likely made it easier for the D-Backs to eventually replace him in the deal with Inciarte and Swanson. A master stroke from Coppy.
Click to expand...

I saw on MLBTR, that Coppy was targeting Swanson for awhile.
 
Simmons deal- Didnt like it at first but Aybar would be flipped or offered a QO. Newcomb has ace potential, Ellias is a good prospect as well.

Shelby deal- While alot of people wanted Pollock, one not sure he re-signs. By the time we're contenders, he'll be nearing the end of his control. Swanson should be starting by 2017. Blair could be starting this year in the rotation, got some Lackey comparisons. Ender is hard to say, depends if we keep him or not.

But both deals look solid.
 
emk418 said:
I completely agree Shelby is not an ace YET but he certainly has what it takes to get there
Click to expand...

The guy is 25 with a plus fastball that allows him to pitch "forward." His GB/FB improved markedly this season, which is a really good sign. Only thing I saw that I really didn't like was his inability to put away hitters. He gets a reliable "out" pitch and he could be really, really good. And by "really, really good," I mean potential ace.
 
smootness said:
Just a couple general thoughts:

The jury is still out on the Simmons trade, but it's hard not to like it from to the Braves' perspective in light of the Miller trade. We got a guy who will be under control for longer, for cheaper, who has a decent chance to be better than Simmons, and in that Simmons deal we added a SP who has a chance to be our best pitcher once we are contenders. I was concerned about SS after the Simmons trade because I've always seen Albies as more of a 2B, but I think it's clear the FO was already targeting Swanson at that point. So it was an opportunity to sell high on Simmons and get a very good SP prospect while not losing much since we planned to get Simmons' replacement elsewhere.

And I think it's obvious the Braves never really wanted Pollock. The return we got makes more sense for us, and by asking for Pollock for so long, it likely made it easier for the D-Backs to eventually replace him in the deal with Inciarte and Swanson. A master stroke from Coppy.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I heard this trade took close to a month to pan out.
 
50PoundHead said:
... Only thing I saw that I really didn't like was his inability to put away hitters. He gets a reliable "out" pitch and he could be really, really good. And by "really, really good," I mean potential ace.
Click to expand...

Part of that could be due to AJ being a terrible pitch framer. I think I heard something like he potentially missed 50+ strike calls this year. Got to figure a few of those were potential strike 3 calls.
 
Carp said:
Part of that could be due to AJ being a terrible pitch framer. I think I heard something like he potentially missed 50+ strike calls this year. Got to figure a few of those were potential strike 3 calls.
Click to expand...

This very point is one reason I was surprised they were so quick to re-up AJ for 2016. With his superior plate skills, if Flowers can at least hit his weight, he could easily be our everyday guy before the season unfolds too far.
 
Carp said:
Part of that could be due to AJ being a terrible pitch framer. I think I heard something like he potentially missed 50+ strike calls this year. Got to figure a few of those were potential strike 3 calls.
Click to expand...

I think poor pitch framing contributed, but there were a lot of times he would get to two strikes and then not have that pitch that could make the hitter chase a bit or produce weak contact. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see Miller as a finished product and he has all the tools to make that next step.
 
Miller doesn't have a big out pitch. It is keeping him from being an ACE. But he's really good. I thought we'd extend him, but I get it now.

Did not like the SIMBA trade b/c Simba is special. If we were going to trade him it should be for an overpay and I think we only got fair value. Combined with the Miller trade I think it makes more sense. That said, for Swanson to be better than Simba he's going to have to really hit. B/c Simba is a once in a generation defender at the premium defensive position. So Swanson is going to have to be a plus defender and hit. Love Newcombe but really would have liked to get more....really would like to have had a bat.
 
Simmons is putting up 3-4 WAR now. He's kind of settled into that range.

I think Swanson's floor is about 2 WAR and his ceiling is 6-7+. He'll be good defensively and shouldn't have to hit all that much to reach Simmons' level.

And I love Simmons.
 
Russ2dollas said:
Miller doesn't have a big out pitch. It is keeping him from being an ACE. But he's really good. I thought we'd extend him, but I get it now.

Did not like the SIMBA trade b/c Simba is special. If we were going to trade him it should be for an overpay and I think we only got fair value. Combined with the Miller trade I think it makes more sense. That said, for Swanson to be better than Simba he's going to have to really hit. B/c Simba is a once in a generation defender at the premium defensive position. So Swanson is going to have to be a plus defender and hit. Love Newcombe but really would have liked to get more....really would like to have had a bat.
Click to expand...

Simmons is really good on defense but unless he starts to hit better (certainly possible), he's about where he'll be going forward in terms of WAR. Besides, how much better can he get defensively?

Swanson will hardly need to be prime Barry Bonds with the bat the way you make it seem.
 
The Simmons trade makes a lot more sense now, but certainly was a question at the time. But now that we have a future potential elite middle infielder in Swanson, the idea of trading Simmons for a potential future ace makes a lot more sense.

Just looking at it as one big trade puts it into better perspective.

Simmons and Miller

for

Newcomb - Pitcher with a legit chance to become an ace.
Ellis - Pitcher with a decent chance to become a good #3 with an outside chance to become a #2 starter.
Blair - Pitcher with a decent chance to become a good #3 starter.
Inciarte - Basically the OF version of Simmons, but with a better BABIP tool and better baserunner. Got him for a bit longer than Simmons.
Aybar - Doesn't really have any value to us unless he's traded or rejects a qualifying offer. One of those is likely.
Swanson - Good chance to become a good everyday middle infielder with an outside chance to be elite.
Also got some salary relief until the young guys start hitting arbitration.

To me Inciarte for Simmons is actually a pretty even swap. Inciarte probably has a good 4 years left of really good OF defense at least, which means you're just about gauranteed to have a 3-4 WAR player if he stays healthy, and an even better player if he just winds up being a good hitter for average. Simmons is basically the same guy.

So if you take that as an even swap then that means you've essentially traded 3 years of Shelby Miller for Aybar, Newcomb, Ellis, Blair and Swanson. Which is obviously a gigantic haul of prospects.

It also gives the team the flexibility to trade Markakis if the Royals and Orioles miss out on all the OF free agents. And you have replacements for both players that were traded while upgrading at another position (CF).
 
weso1 said:
The Simmons trade makes a lot more sense now, but certainly was a question at the time. But now that we have a future potential elite middle infielder in Swanson, the idea of trading Simmons for a potential future ace makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the Miller trade has made me feel a bit better about the Simmons trade. Still, I feel like we should have gotten better value for Simmons. If I could hop in a time machine, I'd still probably revoke that Simmons trade . . . even knowing we have Dansby in the hopper at SS.
 
David O'Brien ‏@DOBrienAJC
Yes, #Braves have received considerable trade interest in Inciarte. But no, not expecting them to trade him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top