The Trade Scenario no one has mentioned

[nsacpi]

i just scanned a prospect list from before this season and he's like the 17th best shortstop or something listed, and that's already being a top 100 player. there may have been one listed second baseman on the list. my econ grades weren't great but something about supply and demand make me have to question this assumed notion that albies would achieve maximum value as a shortstop.

I think you have to dig a little deeper and try to find the answers to two questions. First, how many of those other shortstops are considered likely to stay at the position. Second, how many of them are considered defensively superior to Albies. Just because is the 17th shortstop on the list does not imply that he is the 17th best defensively among that group.

 

[DirkPiggler]

To put nsacpi's point another way, if someone offered a corner OF or power hitting 3B of equivalent expected value and proximity to the majors for Albies would you take it? Just an example as the teams don't really match up here, but would you do a Benintendi for Albies trade? I think you have to do that kind of deal if it's available.

I don't really buy the WAR is WAR argument - at least not when a team has a glaring deficiency in a major area such as power. If you have a team full of guys whose primary value is in their defense you're going to lose a lot of 2-1 and 1-0 games. Likewise if your team is all mashers who don't quite get what that leather thing on their non-throwing hand is for, you end up playing (and losing) 8-7 games. A team with Mallex, Inciarte, Albies, Swanson, Ruiz (or some equivalent who lacks power), Markakis, and a normal catcher with only Freeman as a power source is going to have to rely on stringing together a lot of singles to score.

 

[smootness]

Altuve is one of the most valuable players in baseball, and it's because he's a 2B. While you usually put a player who can stick at short at SS, that by no means indicates that the value there is greater than it would be at 2B. An elite-fielding 2B who hits as well as Albies or Swanson will still be as valuable as they would be at SS.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS are a fantastic option so long as all the other areas around them are addressed appropriately. If you are going to play Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS, and I think they should, then you can't have BOTH Inciarte and Mallex in the OF, you can't have Markakis in RF, you can't have Ruiz at 3B UNLESS his power develops to a 20-30HR/year rate and you can't have a no hit catcher behind the plate. Even Freeman at 1B is a little power short when compared to the very best 1B around the league and traditionally.

 

[NinersSBChamps]

So the idea is to trade proven major league talent for prospects again? When are fans/front office going to understand that this can't be the answer to everything.

 

[mqt]

Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS are a fantastic option so long as all the other areas around them are addressed appropriately. If you are going to play Albies and Swanson at 2B and SS, and I think they should, then you can't have BOTH Inciarte and Mallex in the OF, you can't have Markakis in RF, you can't have Ruiz at 3B UNLESS his power develops to a 20-30HR/year rate and you can't have a no hit catcher behind the plate. Even Freeman at 1B is a little power short when compared to the very best 1B around the league and traditionally.

Wait, what? Our lack of power is not likely to be solved through SS or 2B. If Albies and Swanson are what we hope they will be, it's not a problem for our lineup. It would be a plus, as it would mean we have 25% of our lineup set.

I understand the theory behind trading Albies or Swanson instead of keeping both, but I don't agree with it. If you can get excess value, you should be open to making any deal, but short of actually seeing that value, my preference is to just let them be a potentially great MI duo.

 

[Heyward]

You can play Swanson/Albies together but do agree you have to have some power bats to offset it.

Especially with Mallex, Incierte and questions at C long-term.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Wait, what? Our lack of power is not likely to be solved through SS or 2B. If Albies and Swanson are what we hope they will be, it's not a problem for our lineup. It would be a plus, as it would mean we have 25% of our lineup set.

I understand the theory behind trading Albies or Swanson instead of keeping both, but I don't agree with it. If you can get excess value, you should be open to making any deal, but short of actually seeing that value, my preference is to just let them be a potentially great MI duo.

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

 

[bravos4evr]

I'll make my point one more way. Joe Morgan and Ryne Sandburg were Hall of Fame second basemen. They had a lot of defensive value at second. My point is if they had the arm to play short and played there for the bulk of their careers, their value would have been even higher.

but that's the rub isn't it? many guys who were SS prospects don't end up MLB SS's. they either came up with teams who had better defensive options there, or they weren't up to the challenge. An avg SS defensively will have roughly the same WAR value as an above avg 2b defensively if the bats are identical. So, if it is in the best interest if the team to move Albies or Swanson to 2b, they won't have their MLB value harmed much. It only really harms them if word gets out 'oh he can't play SS" and that's only in trade value. Remember the defensive adjustment takes position into account.

 

[bravos4evr]

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

then you don't understand how WAR works. value is value, this is an established FACT regardless of your acceptance of it (kinda like evolution or gravity) a team with 40 collective WAR will generally have the same record (of course with slight variation) as another team with 40 collective WAR whether they gain it mostly from offense, defense ,pitching, power or equally between the 4. All manner of team construction has produced runs, be it loads of power, loads of OBP, speed, doubles and steals...etc If your bats get on base at a productive level and hit a lot of doubles and steal a lot of bases, you can get away without 3-4 big power bats, you might only need 2.... you might only need 1. I know that it's hard to let go of the cliche's of lineup construction as they have been driven into our heads for 100+ years, but there are other ways to build an offense aside from the "standard model" and be successful.

 

[nsacpi]

Lotsa ways to peel a kumquat

 

[bravos4evr]

Lotsa ways to peel a kumquat

yep!

I think that fans have had the standard model of a lineup drilled into their heads so much that they think alternatives won't work. But they can and do work. (of course the manager needs to run the offense properly....cough cough)

 

[smootness]

I think you missed the point. The point was that you CAN'T count on Albies and Swanson to supply the needed power at SS and 2B. Therefore, you MUST address it elsewhere. Which means you can't have light hitting outfielders, 3B and catcher, no matter what their WAR.

What? Hardly anybody gets their power from SS and 2B. Swanson and Albies would not be some kind of light-hitting MIF combo.

 

[bravos4evr]

indeed, Swanson has had Jeter comps for his bat and Albies ues speed to generate doubles and triples. it's not like we are talking The Pac Man and Lemke out there!

 

[clvclv]

It's all pretty simple IMO, and SHOULD be able to be accomplished without trading anyone. Everybody has varying opinions - particularly when it comes to whether or not we'll spend money, but with the young Pitchers making the strides they seem to be making there's little reason to think we can't absolutely splurge on either a right-handed bat to hit behind Freddie this winter. It's also pretty obvious who it should be.

I can - and have - made the argument that we COULD have signed bats in LF and at 3B this past winter, and still think it's still entirely feasible that we could do so again this winter to make a huge splash as the new park opens, but will just point out one for this thread. The ONLY salary of consequence that's on the books is Freeman's. You can unload Markakis at any time if you want his money off the books. If you can't get any prospects you're happy with right this moment, don't worry - if the Braves were to DFA him they'll have plenty of takers. Even if they were to release him, there's a better than 95% chance that someone takes his salary off their hands. So...

You go spend WHATEVER IT TAKES to get Cespedes to play LF and hit behind Freddie. If it's 5 years and $150 million, so be it. You move Inciarte to RF and you've got one of the best (if not the best) defensive OFs in baseball. You watch Ender, Mallex, and Albies closely the rest of the season and decide who you want leading off next season. For my money, it's Mallex. As others have mentioned, I'm much more interested in production - even at the expense of power. While he may not be the power so many people want, adding Swanson to this lineup is going to be a lot like adding a Lorenzo Cain. In essence, you're going to be moving everyone other than Mallex down at least three spots in the order, meaning you're not going to need NEARLY as much production from them.

CF- Mallex
SS- Swanson
1B- Freeman
LF- Cespedes
3B- Beckham/Garcia/d'Arnaud
C- Flowers
RF- Inciarte
SP
2B- Albies/Beckham/d'Arnaud

Keeping Julio allows you to trade from the prospects in the event you want to try to go get a C or a 3B - Jenkins or Gant and Sims for Lucroy, Profar, or Gallo would pique my interest. You keep the other one of those arms for AAA depth.

You're then free to draft BPA at #3. If Lewis slides, you can take him and dangle Inciarte in a year or so if he's on the fast track. If you want the faster moving college arm and Puk slides, you'll have him to replace Sims on the depth chart in short order. If our scouts like Moniak or Rutherford better than the other options, a Cespedes signing buys them time to develop at their own pace.


I know the idea of a big contract will get some people around here squirming, but overpaying for Cespedes is the easiest way to turn this whole thing around - in a hurry. Other than Freddie, no player in this organization stands to make $10+ million before 2019 unless the brass starts signing players to early extension. The Braves have never been in a better position to go get a big-time free-agent.

 

[bravos4evr]

I am on the Cespedes train.(assuming a Neck trade) I am not opposed to signing Wilson Ramos for 3 years either.

this lineup looks much better:

LF/CF- Mallex
2b- Albies
1b- Freeman
RF- Cespedes
SS- Swanson
CF/LF- Inciarte
C- Ramos
3b- Beckham/Garcia/??? (could swap this around with Ramos)

EDIT: maybe Cespedes asks for a 3 year opt out again and we might avoid the danger decline years???

 

[bravos4evr]

and maybe you end up with Swanson hitting 3rd and Freeman dropping to 4th with Cespedes 5th.... lots of options with a lineup like above.

Tho, it could be improved by a trade to add a power hitting 3b. I wouldn't be opposed to Gallo for some of our arms, his K rate could be hidden well at #5 in the lineup with Swanson or Inciarte hitting behind him with more OBP and contact skills.

 

[Heyward]

Cespedes does have an opt out clause, hes having a really good year and seems to love NY.

So could stay, or opt out and try to land one more huge deal.

Not many good outfielders on the FA market so it will be tough.

 

[bravos4evr]

true, if Cespedes renegotiates with the Mets, there is Reddick, Bautista (old) Rasmus, Carlos Gomez , Austin Jackson and most everyone else is worse........ ugh

 

[mqt]

Cespedes does have an opt out clause, hes having a really good year and seems to love NY.

So could stay, or opt out and try to land one more huge deal.

Not many good outfielders on the FA market so it will be tough.

As long as Cespedes doesn't fall off a cliff or get seriously hurt, there's no chance in hell he fails to opt out. Even if he loves New York, he'd still opt out and negotiate with the Mets on a new contract.