Ender

Inciarte was a coup. I'm glad Arizona bought into the hype that Shelby would keep performing like he did last year.

If we had 2 players, one was going to be 25 and a CF and had a 9.0 rWAR in about 1000 PA, the other was a pitcher the other a pitcher with an rWAR of 9.1 in about 600 innings pitched, you'd certainly be happy for an even swap between the 2. Add in getting a top 20 prospect and a borderline top 50 prospect and you'd be skeeting your way to victory. Arizona has truly been raped by us way too many times. Justin Trade was kill, Touki trade was kill, and Miller trade was highway robbery. Last one to add is the Elander for Cahill which was a loss, but honestly, it wasn't a win for Arizona either aside from some money saved. I would roll that loss into the TOuki sale and call it an overall advantage for us.
 
Enscheff said:
I just can't agree that the Markakis signed was all that bad. Sure, the Braves were going to be bad. But they needed someone to occupy space in RF, and Markakis was there for $11m per year. The money they have to Nick hasn't hindered the team in any way from making moves they wanted to make. I can see the point saying "they shouldn't have spent any money in RF", but what negative effect has it had?

While his power coming back was always questionable, despite the spin the FO put on it, he has been a steady presence on an unsteady team. He gets on base, he is decent defensively, and he has been a model teammate from all accounts.

The real question becomes: what next? Markakis is good enough in the OF of a team has 4+ WAR players out there next to him. The Braves don't have that. Currently they have a 0-1 WAR lawn ornament in LF and a 2-3 WAR defensive whiz next to him in CF. That OF is not good enough to be a .500 team, and if the presence of Markakis in RF prevents the team from upgrading the OF, then the signing becomes bad no matter what. Same reasoning why I'm against the Kemp deal. There was no reason to commit to a bad player in LF and RF and leave the team nowhere to improve production in the OF.
Click to expand...

The issue that I have with the Markakis signing is the apparent lack of vision into what you are trying to do. To be fair, maybe they hadn't decided that it was a MUST to rebuild when they DID sign Markakis, but even that is damaging.

The thing is, at the time of the Markakis signing, the FO either was or should have been looking at ways to bring in as much talent in a short amount of time as they could from outside sources and since there would be a rebuild which would require time, the talent needed to be young. Well, the best ways to get that young talent is either through draft position or trade.

If you are looking at draft position, a veteran RF who plays well and helps the record is counter productive.

If you are looking at trade value, Markakis' best asset was his leadership and perceived defensive capability and teams don't trade for that. Teams don't get in a pennant race and suddenly say "we need to go trade for a light hitting RF who will occasionally flash a glove and provide great leadership."

So, IMO, the investment was always a waste or an obvious attempt to straddle the line between rebuild and compete, which never works, at least not for teams who don't have unlimited cash.
 
zitothebrave said:
Inciarte was a coup. I'm glad Arizona bought into the hype that Shelby would keep performing like he did last year.

If we had 2 players, one was going to be 25 and a CF and had a 9.0 rWAR in about 1000 PA, the other was a pitcher the other a pitcher with an rWAR of 9.1 in about 600 innings pitched, you'd certainly be happy for an even swap between the 2. Add in getting a top 20 prospect and a borderline top 50 prospect and you'd be skeeting your way to victory. Arizona has truly been raped by us way too many times. Justin Trade was kill, Touki trade was kill, and Miller trade was highway robbery. Last one to add is the Elander for Cahill which was a loss, but honestly, it wasn't a win for Arizona either aside from some money saved. I would roll that loss into the TOuki sale and call it an overall advantage for us.
Click to expand...

I thought I remember the Cahill trade and another trade between the two teams being announced as connected and netting us either slot money or a pick. Can't remember for certain though.
 
Here's my uneducated guess at what the FO was thinking with the Markakis signing....

We need someone to throw out in RF to replace the overrated Heyward. He has to be a name and below market value. I would help if he's from the Atlanta area and had a really good beard.
We need a guy who puts his head down and goes about his business no matter if we suck or not to show these young guys not to let their emotions get the best of them when we're losing.
We think Nick's dip in slugging the last two years has been caused to his neck and previous wrist injury. If we sign him and let him "rehab" in our tank years, maybe we can flip him for something when his power comes back.
 
Chico said:
Here's my uneducated guess at what the FO was thinking with the Markakis signing....

We need someone to throw out in RF to replace the overrated Heyward. He has to be a name and below market value. I would help if he's from the Atlanta area and had a really good beard.
We need a guy who puts his head down and goes about his business no matter if we suck or not to show these young guys not to let their emotions get the best of them when we're losing.
We think Nick's dip in slugging the last two years has been caused to his neck and previous wrist injury. If we sign him and let him "rehab" in our tank years, maybe we can flip him for something when his power comes back.
Click to expand...

Signing him was far from a big mistake. I wasn't a fan of it, but I can see the logic at least, and I think you raise some good points.
 
Chico said:
Here's my uneducated guess at what the FO was thinking with the Markakis signing....

We need someone to throw out in RF to replace the overrated Heyward. He has to be a name and below market value. I would help if he's from the Atlanta area and had a really good beard.
We need a guy who puts his head down and goes about his business no matter if we suck or not to show these young guys not to let their emotions get the best of them when we're losing.
We think Nick's dip in slugging the last two years has been caused to his neck and previous wrist injury. If we sign him and let him "rehab" in our tank years, maybe we can flip him for something when his power comes back.
Click to expand...

This post is full of lulz.
 
yeezus said:
Signing him was far from a big mistake. I wasn't a fan of it, but I can see the logic at least, and I think you raise some good points.
Click to expand...

No it was a big mistake. Now if it was a 2/30 contract it wouldn't have been a huge mistake, but Markakis is a solid player at best when we signed him, by year 4 when we should be using that money to invest in palyers to help us win he could easily be a true SVOD.
 
zitothebrave said:
No it was a big mistake. Now if it was a 2/30 contract it wouldn't have been a huge mistake, but Markakis is a solid player at best when we signed him, by year 4 when we should be using that money to invest in palyers to help us win he could easily be a true SVOD.
Click to expand...

You prefer 2/30 to 2/22? Are you thinking we'll have to eat more than 8M to trade him?
 
zitothebrave said:
No it was a big mistake. Now if it was a 2/30 contract it wouldn't have been a huge mistake, but Markakis is a solid player at best when we signed him, by year 4 when we should be using that money to invest in palyers to help us win he could easily be a true SVOD.
Click to expand...

I disagree.
 
Chico said:
You prefer 2/30 to 2/22? Are you thinking we'll have to eat more than 8M to trade him?
Click to expand...

Most likely. Or take on someone who is making money back. Markakis doesn't have much trade value. We're looking at like a 1-2 WAR player making exactly what he's worth to being slightly overpaid. That player is about to turn 33. There's not much market for him. Our best chance to unload him with minimal payout is to trade him before the end of this month to a desperate team. Desperate teams will give us our best chances to get the maximum return.
 
zitothebrave said:
Most likely. Or take on someone who is making money back. Markakis doesn't have much trade value. We're looking at like a 1-2 WAR player making exactly what he's worth to being slightly overpaid. That player is about to turn 33. There's not much market for him. Our best chance to unload him with minimal payout is to trade him before the end of this month to a desperate team. Desperate teams will give us our best chances to get the maximum return.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt that we'd have to include more than $8M to move Markakis this winter. I think we could move him and not include anything.
 
I find it curious that Nick is providing positive range (UZR) for the first time in like 8 years with Ender's elite defense in center. Hopefully Ender keeps boosting Nick's value so we can trade him this offseason.
 
I would think if we covered Marks remaining salary in 16 we could get an arm in return.

I also think its gonna take it may take an injury for a contender.
 
thewupk said:
I find it curious that Nick is providing positive range (UZR) for the first time in like 8 years with Ender's elite defense in center. Hopefully Ender keeps boosting Nick's value so we can trade him this offseason.
Click to expand...

This is 100% the reason I believe teams don't put that much stock in UZR and DRS (and instead use metrics based on data we don't have access to).
 
thewupk said:
I find it curious that Nick is providing positive range (UZR) for the first time in like 8 years with Ender's elite defense in center. Hopefully Ender keeps boosting Nick's value so we can trade him this offseason.
Click to expand...

Haha..I foresee some panties being in a bunch
 
Chico said:
I highly doubt that we'd have to include more than $8M to move Markakis this winter. I think we could move him and not include anything.
Click to expand...

That's highly unlikely. Baltimore expressed interest in bringing him back but wanted a decent amount of cash IIRC. I know KC was sniffing but they didn't seem that hyped about taking on his salary.
 
chop2chip said:
This is 100% the reason I believe teams don't put that much stock in UZR and DRS (and instead use metrics based on data we don't have access to).
Click to expand...

I don't think teams put near as much stock into defensive stats as fans and sportswriters do.
 
chop2chip said:
This is 100% the reason I believe teams don't put that much stock in UZR and DRS (and instead use metrics based on data we don't have access to).
Click to expand...

I think you just have to know how to use it. Looking at it on the surface doesn't tell you everything.
 
chop2chip said:
This is 100% the reason I believe teams don't put that much stock in UZR and DRS (and instead use metrics based on data we don't have access to).
Click to expand...

It's more likely that Markakis's positive defense is because of sampling rather than Ender. Realize his "positive" is 3.4 vs -0.1 from last year. It's something that a handful of good breaks could explain. RF doesn't get a ton of chances overall so a few breaks one way or the other could be their season. Of course the OF around you effects your performance as well, but if that was really the leading cause, then why is someone like Heyward have almost the exact same UZR/150 every year no matter if he had BOurn next to him or Upton or now the very mediocre at best Fowler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top