Around Baseball Offseason Thread
- Thread starter bravesfanforlife88
- Start date
Not particularly, if they were that valuable they'd be signed already. A few mil a year isn't going to change their value much at all at the deadline.
50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
What's the rule on that? When is a draft pick no longer attached to Desmond?
I'm pretty sure it always is, or at least until the season starts.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
something tells me it won't expire until after the draft. Once the Draft takes place then the QO attachment is voided. I don't have references on this, but I believe I read that somewhere.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I am as high on Riley as anyone... but come on... you can't make that conclusion after a half season in rookie ball. Desmond disappointed last year but before then he was a perennial 20/20 guy with decent average. Granted, I still don't want him here because I don't want him to block looks at our young guys since we won't be competing anyways.
praeceps93
Roaming in Rome
You're correct. It's after the draft.
I would absolutely take another Austin Riley over Ian Desmond.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
Austin Riley has more value than Desmond right now, all things considered.
I sure as hell wouldn't trade Riley for 1-2 years of Desmond.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
How so? How do you know?
That's far from a guarantee. Who's going to give us Austin Riley for Desmond at the deadline?
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
For every Austin Riley (who may not even make it of course) there's plenty more who don't even make the bigs.
In fact, let's play a game.
in 2012, only 4 of the 35 picks in the 2nd round have made it to the bigs,
In 2011 only 10 out of 30 picks made it to the bigs
In 2010 only 15 out of 32 picks made it to the bigs
In 2009 only 14 out of 31 picks made it to the bigs
In 2008 only 16 out of 31 picks made it to the bigs
In those 5 years, you see 59 out of 159 picks make the bigs, Which is about a 40% chance of a pick making it to the bigs at all.
And it's not like the performance of most of those picks were super good
2012'shighest WAR so far was Alex Wood 2011's was Brad Wood 2010 was Tron, 2009 was Kipnis, 2008 was Tyson Ross
Some of those guys hold value (Wood and Tron) some of them held none.
A better assessment of value was done where they figured out the estimated WAR by pick position based on performance while under team control. What they found was late first and early second round picks were worth about 1.5-2.5 fWAR. So do you think we can sign Desmond and get that much value for him? The answer is clearly yes. Now when I say sign Desmond I odn't mean to a 1 year deal, i mean to a pretty friendly 4 year deal. Like 4/45. Or something like that. All Desmond has to do to be worth more than that pick and his salary is produce a WAR around 9 for his whole deal. Which isn't a slam dunk, but considering he worth 17.4 fWAR over 6 seasons, there's a pretty good chance he could be worth it.
My only flag with him is 2014 and 2015 showed a huge increase in K rate, he needs to get that back to the low 20s to really be worth it for anyone he signs for.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
The Problem with that logic is that it prescribes an inflated value to a pick because someone bucking the norm.
Yes Mike Trout was found outside of the top of the draft, it's not common that you find that value that late in the first round though. In fact if you look at the players 3 picks above him (Randall Grichuk, Kyle Gibson, Jared Mitchell) and 3 picks below him (Eric Arnett, Nick Franklin, and Raymond Fuentes) you'd realize that finding the high value player outside of the top 10 picks isn't common. While it happens every year, it fails more often every year.
By your logic I could argue why sign anyone and ever lose a pick? Why sign Clayton Kershaw or Jason heyward or Zack Greinke or any other top FA, because Mike Piazza was taken 1390th overall, or Keith Hernandez was taken 785th overall or Mark Buerhle was taken 1139th overall, or John Smoltz was taken 574th overall. It's dumb to look at people who buck trends and assume the norm. Riley looks like a fantastic 40 range pick. Want to know some other kind of recent names the Braves have taken around pick 40? Matt Lipka, Brett Devall, Cory Rasmus, Steve Evarts, Beau Jones.
chop2chip
Well-known member
That's kind of the point.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
I'd rather a chance at Austin Riley than losing a pick and paying a guy who doesn't really blend with our long-term goals. Again, who is going to trade a guy who's around a top-100 prospect for Ian Desmond at the deadline, unless you gamble on him raking (which I wouldn't).
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
What do you mean?
I don't think Desmond would fetch a guy like Riley at the deadline.
Russ2dollas
10 yr, $185 million Extension
probably not. But it's more likely Riley never plays an inning in MLB than he is as good as Desmond. Riley has value b/c he is cheap, controlled, and has a lot of upside. That always interests teams. Desmond is expensive and you know all of his warts.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
That's exactly my point: Whether Riley ever plays or not, he still holds value right now, and I think most teams would value him more highly than Desmond (again, all things considered).
You would be wrong on that. Not that i am advocating signing Desmond, but if we needed a SS and had the money to spend, then we should definitely sign him. And if Desmond rebounds to his previous form, then he would be an outstanding value, commanding multiple Riley-esque players in a trade.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
that is a IF.... Desmond has been on the decline the last two years at the plate with very streaky defense that is also declining. If we were signing Desmond 4 years ago, then yes.. but now you are getting a player who is just starting to leave his peak years with a lot of question marks. I think the Braves are not in a situation to gamble on Desmond.