Pitching Surplus?

[cajunrevenge]

I guess I should be more clear. Regarding the deals that WERE made, it didn't appear that the Braves were targeting controllable power bats early. I could be wrong because I don't know what was asked or offered in all deals. But other teams asked for hitting and got it. Specifically, the Milwaukee deal is an example. Yes the sent a ML OF to Houston (one who would have been traded to NY Mets if he had passed his physical). But, could the Braves have put together a better package around Wood?

I guess my biggest beef is that they don't seem to be in any big hurry to address hitting now for the future. Now that they have an opportunity to turn Teheran into multiple bats (in theory) it appears that they've gotten cold feet. My fear is that they are going to spend all this time putting together the Rolls Royce of pitching, then paint it camo and put flat tires on it and say, well "it is a Rolls Royce."

I dont think the hitting situation is bad at all. We have our middle of the order bat in Freeman at 1B. I think we are strong up the middle with Mallex, Swanson, and Albies. They should be about league average hitters next year and plus defenders. Ruiz/Beckham/Adonis could be a productive platoon at 3B. I am still convinced we will trade for Lucroy. I think Ender and Flowers go in that trade. We have plenty of money to sign a big bat like Cespedes. He probably re-signs with the Mets if we dont sign him so I see it as helping us and hurting a key division rival in the short term. Mallex/Swanson/Freeman/Cespedes/Lucroy/Markakis/3B Platoon/Albies would be a damn fine lineup to me. This would only raise payroll by about 30 million in 2017 and there would be plenty money to extend Lucroy. The key is not to go beyond 6 years on any big contracts so we have money to re-sign our young prospects when they hit free agency.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I said that they can't get what they feel he's worth. If they think he's a borderline ace and no one will pay that price, don't trade him.

If they feel he is something that no one else in baseball feels then there is a really good chance that they are wrong. Look, I'm all for setting the bar high. BUT, I think you can set it too high. It's the SAFE play. Set the bar so high that if someone jumps over it, you're a hero. If no one does, you can always fall back on the old standard that teams wouldn't give you what he's worth.

But trading Teheran is an opportunity. It's an opportunity to trade a piece of the strength of the team (pre-supposing that the work done to acquire pitching to this point has been good work) to bring in pieces that will address multiple areas of need.
Not trading Teheran, assuming a reasonable return (say one of a guy like Meadows, Frazier, Dahl, Profar, Gallo plus a couple of other pieces, maybe far away but clearly talented) is a missed opportunity.

 

[cajunrevenge]

It was an extreme example used to illustrate that it is possible to have a surplus of pitching.

Its also possible I find 100,000 dollars in a duffel bag outside my door when I leave my house but its not going to happen. No one is going to doubt you can have a pitching surplus in theory. No one is going to have even 8 good starting pitchers to start a year. You might have 3 aces and 5 back of the rotation starters.

 

[smootness]

If they feel he is something that no one else in baseball feels then there is a really good chance that they are wrong. Look, I'm all for setting the bar high. BUT, I think you can set it too high. It's the SAFE play. Set the bar so high that if someone jumps over it, you're a hero. If no one does, you can always fall back on the old standard that teams wouldn't give you what he's worth.

But trading Teheran is an opportunity. It's an opportunity to trade a piece of the strength of the team (pre-supposing that the work done to acquire pitching to this point has been good work) to bring in pieces that will address multiple areas of need.
Not trading Teheran, assuming a reasonable return (say one of a guy like Meadows, Frazier, Dahl, Profar, Gallo plus a couple of other pieces, maybe far away but clearly talented) is a missed opportunity.

That assumption from you is not a known thing at all. If prospect guys seemed to think that Benintendi alone was clearly an overpay for him, then perhaps we weren't able to get any team to give us a top prospect for him. Have you considered that possibility?

The Braves are not going to say, 'We've seen Teheran for 8 years and believe he is ___' and then see that the rest of baseball says, 'We actually see him as ___' and say, 'Ok, you're right, we'll take less to trade him.'

You don't trade him just because you view it as an opportunity. You still have to get the right value. We still have him for 4 years after this. There is plenty of time, and in the meantime we have a great pitcher.

 

[auyushu]

I'm not saying hitting isn't available at all, I'm just saying that it's not easy to get it and is usually valued higher than pitching that isn't close to major-league ready. You said 'other teams' have found a way to get bats, then mentioned the Braves as one of the 4 teams who have done it. I just don't see how we're 'not paying attention' to bats. We're getting the best value we can get, and the plan is to ultimately do with that value what is necessary to have a well-rounded team.

I agree with your overall point, but there have been times when it seems when we seem to completely ignore hitting in favor of pitching, even when the pitching may not be the BPA there or have the highest upside. The drafting of Harrington at 80 in the past draft when there were a couple of interesting bats available being an example. I also find it hard to believe we couldn't have gotten Hunter Renfroe in either of our deals with the Padres. Obviously the Heyward trade worked out because the Dbacks are run by idiots, but without the Dbacks we probably would have been better off grabbing Piscotty than Miller. Just a couple examples where we directly went for pitching rather than the bat.

That being said, the issues you've covered in your last couple posts I think shows the true imperative that we become more balanced in our drafting. Teams aren't trading young upside bats, but they are willing to trade the same type of pitchers (see the Red Sox and Espinoza). So we have to start drafting our own. In our 2015 Allard was a no brainer, and Wentz and Muller were the logical choices there at those picks after nobody fell, but there were other points in those drafts we went pitching over decent hitting prospects (Soroka over Ke'Bryan Hayes for example). Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Soroka cause I think he's awesome, but we do seem to go pitching to the exclusion of all else at times.

Which needs to change a bit if we are going to be successful in this environment where teams hold onto good hitting prospects for dear life. When some of the best examples Harry can come up with are solid but not amazing prospects like Phillips and the guys moved in the Padres trade you know it's difficult to get hitting prospects.

 

[smootness]

Its also possible I find 100,000 dollars in a duffel bag outside my door when I leave my house but its not going to happen. No one is going to doubt you can have a pitching surplus in theory. No one is going to have even 8 good starting pitchers to start a year. You might have 3 aces and 5 back of the rotation starters.

He specifically doubted that you can have a pitching surplus in theory. He then asked for an example, and I provided one.

Don't take it too seriously, I was at least halfway kidding. But I do believe it is possible for a team to have a pitching surplus, at least to the extent that it makes sense to get rid of a little bit of pitching for more hitting.

 

[smootness]

I agree with your overall point, but there have been times when it seems when we seem to completely ignore hitting in favor of pitching, even when the pitching may not be the BPA there or have the highest upside. The drafting of Harrington at 80 in the past draft when there were a couple of interesting bats available being an example. I also find it hard to believe we couldn't have gotten Hunter Renfroe in either of our deals with the Padres. Obviously the Heyward trade worked out because the Dbacks are run by idiots, but without the Dbacks we probably would have been better off grabbing Piscotty than Miller. Just a couple examples where we directly went for pitching rather than the bat.

That being said, the issues you've covered in your last couple posts I think shows the true imperative that we become more balanced in our drafting. Teams aren't trading young upside bats, but they are willing to trade the same type of pitchers (see the Red Sox and Espinoza). So we have to start drafting our own. In our 2015 Allard was a no brainer, and Wentz and Muller were the logical choices there at those picks after nobody fell, but there were other points in those drafts we went pitching over decent hitting prospects (Soroka over Ke'Bryan Hayes for example). Not that I'm saying we shouldn't have drafted Soroka cause I think he's awesome, but we do seem to go pitching to the exclusion of all else at times.

Which needs to change a bit if we are going to be successful in this environment where teams hold onto good hitting prospects for dear life. When some of the best examples Harry can come up with are solid but not amazing prospects like Phillips and the guys moved in the Padres trade you know it's difficult to get hitting prospects.

I've just seen so many of our fans state a clear opinion based on 'I find it hard to believe...' The bottom line is, we don't know. It's pretty clear we haven't completely ignored hitting and in fact understand its importance. We also clearly value having a ton of pitching.

I do think we need to be balanced at the top of drafts, and I'll be disappointed if we go pitching again next year. I honestly don't care that much about what we did at 80 this year.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

That assumption from you is not a known thing at all. If prospect guys seemed to think that Benintendi alone was clearly an overpay for him, then perhaps we weren't able to get any team to give us a top prospect for him. Have you considered that possibility?

The Braves are not going to say, 'We've seen Teheran for 8 years and believe he is ___' and then see that the rest of baseball says, 'We actually see him as ___' and say, 'Ok, you're right, we'll take less to trade him.'

You don't trade him just because you view it as an opportunity. You still have to get the right value. We still have him for 4 years after this. There is plenty of time, and in the meantime we have a great pitcher.

Has it occurred to you that Boston isn't the only team out there and that Benitendi isn't the only potential target? In fact, while Benitendi is the flavor of the day in a lot of areas, I personally don't think he's a real fit for the Braves.

Of course you don't cave to what a specific other team says he's worth. That's why you talk to a lot of clubs. If NO clubs meet your demands, then your demands were too high. What you are saying is that he's worth more specifically to the Braves at this point in time than he is worth to any other team at this point in time.

You view it as an opportunity AND get the right value. You don't do that by saying he's not available or making the demand so high that teams don't even bother to try and negotiate. You say you might move him but have certain needs in mind that need to be met.

 

[auyushu]

We also clearly value having a ton of pitching.

I do think we need to be balanced at the top of drafts, and I'll be disappointed if we go pitching again next year. I honestly don't care that much about what we did at 80 this year.

Lucroy, Wil Myers, Kyle Seager, are just a few examples of excellent hitting that got drafted in the 3rd round after pick 80. There is a ton of really good talent drafted in the mid 2nd to mid 3rd rounds that goes on to become top notch players every year. Acting like it just doesn't matter is a weird tack to take.

 

[smootness]

Has it occurred to you that Boston isn't the only team out there and that Benitendi isn't the only potential target? In fact, while Benitendi is the flavor of the day in a lot of areas, I personally don't think he's a real fit for the Braves.

Of course you don't cave to what a specific other team says he's worth. That's why you talk to a lot of clubs. If NO clubs meet your demands, then your demands were too high. What you are saying is that he's worth more specifically to the Braves at this point in time than he is worth to any other team at this point in time.

You view it as an opportunity AND get the right value. You don't do that by saying he's not available or making the demand so high that teams don't even bother to try and negotiate. You say you might move him but have certain needs in mind that need to be met.

You've perfectly outlined what you do when you need to trade someone. We don't need to trade Teheran. If someone doesn't meet our value, we don't lower it just to trade him; we keep him.

You've described a process by which you will always end up trading a player. What will you give us? That's not enough...but it's all we can get. Well, our value is too high then, so we will lower our value...and take your deal.

And no, it never occurred to me that Boston isn't the only other team. My point was that those guys were clearly saying that Benintendi's value as a prospect is worth more than Teheran's value. If that is true, then they would also think that about all the other prospects rated similarly to Benintendi...which includes basically everyone you mentioned. And if you disagree with all of them, then by your definition, you are wrong and must accept what they say.

 

[smootness]

Lucroy, Wil Myers, Kyle Seager, are just a few examples of excellent hitting that got drafted in the 3rd round after pick 80. There is a ton of really good talent drafted in the mid 2nd to mid 3rd rounds that goes on to become top notch players every year. Acting like it just doesn't matter is a weird tack to take.

Man, this thread is getting to be like pulling teeth.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for #80 to become something or that it really doesn't matter at all. I'm just not going to get so deep into the discussion that we start picking apart what we could have done better in round 3 of the draft. I'm sure there's also a hitter we could have taken in round 11 or 12 that may have been a better option than some pitcher. I'm just going to let all that play out. I'm sure we are convinced Harrington was the right pick for some reason, so we'll see what happens.

 

[auyushu]

Man, this thread is getting to be like pulling teeth.

Sorry, I'll try not to argue semantics with you, I've had people do that with me enough lately. But I think that examples like that are the reason some people think we ignore hitting. Even when the pitcher really doesn't look like BPA at times, we still go pitching.

 

[smootness]

Sorry, I'll try not to argue semantics with you, I've had people do that with me enough lately. But I think that examples like that are the reason some people think we ignore hitting. Even when the pitcher really doesn't look like BPA at times, we still go pitching.

Haha no worries. I get it, but I don't think we should target hitting at 80 because we've targeted pitching so much elsewhere; that's not likely to change anything. I want us taking BPA pretty much across the board with slight considerations at times for need (as in, we value these two guys the same in a trade, but we have no room for a 1B and do need a corner OF, etc.).

I just don't think taking Harrington at 80 is one more example of us targeting pitching too much. If we take a pitcher at 1 next year if a hitter is worthy of it, it's not going to satisfy me to then take 5 straight hitters in rounds 3-7, for example. I want the hitter at 1. I don't really care so much what we do in round 3.

 

[nsacpi]

our international signings are skewed very strongly toward hitters...so overall acquisition of amateur talent looks pretty balanced to me...if there is any imbalance the source would appear to be returns on trades

 

[Horsehide Harry]

You've perfectly outlined what you do when you need to trade someone. We don't need to trade Teheran. If someone doesn't meet our value, we don't lower it just to trade him; we keep him.

You've described a process by which you will always end up trading a player. What will you give us? That's not enough...but it's all we can get. Well, our value is too high then, so we will lower our value...and take your deal.

And no, it never occurred to me that Boston isn't the only other team. My point was that those guys were clearly saying that Benintendi's value as a prospect is worth more than Teheran's value. If that is true, then they would also think that about all the other prospects rated similarly to Benintendi...which includes basically everyone you mentioned. And if you disagree with all of them, then by your definition, you are wrong and must accept what they say.

We aren't connecting. Let me try one more time. IF you can't get something reasonable (in the eyes of a realistic Braves management) then don't trade him. But don't limit the market so much that you don't get options. You might get surprised.

You are defending Braves management on why Teheran won't be traded. Fine. I am saying that if all they are getting is other pitching offers or totally inadequate offers, say Boston offering Travis, Chavis and Rei, then DON'T trade him. We don't know that is happening.

But, don't set your asking price in stone and not be willing to listen. And don't be completely closed minded. Listen. Maybe you'll hear something that works that you hadn't thought about, even if it doesn't play in the media as a "win."

Bottom line, it appears that pricing for good starting pitching is currently through the roof. Teheran is pitching about as good as he can. The Braves aren't competing anytime soon and have huge holes all over the field. It's an opportunity to turn one ML player today into 2-3 a year or two from now when it will actually matter.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

our international signings are skewed very strongly toward hitters...so overall acquisition of amateur talent looks pretty balanced to me...if there is any imbalance the source would appear to be returns on trades

It's an accordion effect. You get good pitching with no hitting. Then you get good hitting with no pitching.

 

[nsacpi]

It's an accordion effect. You get good pitching with no hitting. Then you get good hitting with no pitching.

you referring to when the talent is likely to be major league ready?

 

[auyushu]

I just don't think taking Harrington at 80 is one more example of us targeting pitching too much. If we take a pitcher at 1 next year if a hitter is worthy of it, it's not going to satisfy me to then take 5 straight hitters in rounds 3-7, for example. I want the hitter at 1. I don't really care so much what we do in round 3.

It mainly bothered me because I was a fan of Heath Quinn from Samford, who had dropped a bit from where he was expected to go and was surprisingly still there for us at 80. He was basically like a poor mans Lewis, and a guy that I think was definitely worth taking a chance on there. All the scouting reports on Harrington have him as a back of the rotation guy or reliever, so he was a bit of a reach at 80. Quinn is also looking pretty darn good so far for the Giants. So maybe it winds up mattering, maybe not, who knows.

 

[smootness]

We aren't connecting. Let me try one more time. IF you can't get something reasonable (in the eyes of a realistic Braves management) then don't trade him. But don't limit the market so much that you don't get options. You might get surprised.

You are defending Braves management on why Teheran won't be traded. Fine. I am saying that if all they are getting is other pitching offers or totally inadequate offers, say Boston offering Travis, Chavis and Rei, then DON'T trade him. We don't know that is happening.

But, don't set your asking price in stone and not be willing to listen. And don't be completely closed minded. Listen. Maybe you'll hear something that works that you hadn't thought about, even if it doesn't play in the media as a "win."

Bottom line, it appears that pricing for good starting pitching is currently through the roof. Teheran is pitching about as good as he can. The Braves aren't competing anytime soon and have huge holes all over the field. It's an opportunity to turn one ML player today into 2-3 a year or two from now when it will actually matter.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest we're not listening? Based on most of Coppy's comments, it's pretty obviously we've discussed it with teams and have listened.

The only player you can argue they may have shut down talks on is Freeman. They've been pretty consistent for the last month or so that Teheran probably won't be going anywhere, but they hadn't said anything like that before recently. And they've still left the door open on most occasions.

I'm working under the assumption that we are at least listening and would gladly pull the trigger if we got what we feel is good value. I'm not sure why anyone would assume otherwise.

 

[clvclv]

A team has 15 good major league starting pitchers.

Again, name one.