Rainy Monday rambling...
https://whensidslidcronies.wordpres...be-aiming-too-high-and-is-there-a-better-fit/
https://whensidslidcronies.wordpres...be-aiming-too-high-and-is-there-a-better-fit/
Why Sale???
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
The crux of this article is that Archer would be cheaper to acquire than Sale, which is patently false. Archer is a significantly more valuable trade asset than Sale.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-archer-is-likely-to-cost-more-than-chris-sale/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/chris-archer-is-likely-to-cost-more-than-chris-sale/
We can't base the potential asking price on what bored kids post on message boards or the comments section underneath a DOB column. Part of this is wishful thinking, but it doesn't seem as if anybody else has been that much in active pursuit over the last week or so. This could be the calm before the storm with Winter Meetings coming up quickly. That Sean Rodriguez signing did seem to signal that somebody could become a chip (Albies?). So with him and a top pitching prospect, that's a good starting point. Swanson is a non-starter. So why even bother mentioning? Doubt that Inciarte is being dangled either, just because it's popular again here to throw his name out as potential trade bait.
No, I'm saying pretty much the same thing - in non-numbers terms. For the Braves, Archer fits the timeline much better.
As the FanGraphs article states, "Now, a lot of that excess value comes down the road. The fact that Archer has two extra years of control is great, for any acquiring team, but that control doesn’t help tomorrow. So the value boost should be discounted, because teams care about the short-term future more than anything."
My point is the Braves should be much more concerned about 2019-2021 than the next two seasons. Neither you, I, nor Jeff Sullivan has a clue how the Rays view the players I mention - or our other prospects. What I'm saying is that I'd much prefer finding out whether they like guys like Demeritte, Riley, Wentz, Muller, Acuna, Toussaint, Soroka, and even Anderson or Acuna enough to take a package of them for Archer before I'd want to include Inciarte/Swanson/Albies in a deal for Sale.
But the overall point of the FG article is that Sale might be cheaper to acquire than Archer, and you argued that we should target Archer instead in large part due to the fact he will cost much less than Sale.
In terms of pieces needed to contend right away, yes.
What part of that isn't clear?
Don't trades (if possible) - Inciarte, Swanson, Albies. Still controllable for 4-6 years AND ready to contribute soon, certainly while Archer would be under control. I stated that I'd much prefer looking into what a package for Archer would have to look like before I'd go far down the road pursuing Sale. Could we afford to give up TWO premium arms in a deal if we were getting Archer for five years instead of Sale for three? Sure. Could we afford to give up Acuna if we were able to keep both Inciarte and Mallex? Sure. Could we give up Demeritte AND Riley if we were able to keep Albies? Sure.
The White Sox are more apt to require closer to MLB ready pieces than the Rays IMO. Assuming that, I'd like to find out how much value they might put on our younger prospects than Chicago would. If you're able to hold onto Inciarte/Mallex, Swanson, and Albies you'll be much closer to being able to be serious contenders in 2019. Leave the catching situation as-is for this year and go spend on Lucroy next winter.
If it costs you more volume in young prospects, at least you're not counting on developing a homegrown "Ace" until 2021 - and you'd still have several from the group of Fried/Allard/Anderson/etc. plus another potential high-ceiling arm in this summer's draft.
Here is the proposed deal for Archer:
"Would an offer of Newcomb, Travis Demeritte, Austin Riley, and Joey Wentz or Kyle Muller be enough to get Matt Silverman and the Rays’ brass to part with Archer?"
That package isn't even worth half the value of a package containing 2 of Swanson, Albies and Inciarte, which is what it would take to land Sale. Hell, the entire package isn't even worth ONE of those premium players required to get Sale.
There is a thread here where nsacpi and others do a good job valuing the different Braves assets, as well as a valuation of both Archer and Sale. I would look into that info before posting trqde proposals.
The article simply isn't realistic or consistent. Archer is worth significantly more than Sale, and the proposed package for Archer isn't even close to as valuable as the package mentioned for Sale.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
I enjoyed the article, thanks. I would prefer Archer for the years and because I think he's more likely to hold up physically.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise that Archer will cost less than Sale. I think Tampa probably knows what they have and for how long and have him priced accordingly. And I'm on record as saying I'd pay a dear price for an ace, and I would for Archer.
If Swanson is the ask I walk away. Inciarte isn't as attractive to Tampa as he might be to the White Sox because they have Kiermaier. I'd do just about anything else I've seen proposed, including this deal.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
There's something wrong with those valuations in the context of a trade. He's using excess value to line up parts on both sides of the equation and the results on the prospects side (Braves) would never be enough to get the established major leaguer on the other side. I think there needs to be a premium on the prospect side to allow for the much wider variance of possible outcomes. Which means sometimes you get a Teixeira deal, but more often you get a McGriff deal.
I think in that discussion you're referencing a fair price for Archer was Albies and Acuna. Of course Tampa doesn't do that. If that would get Archer we'd have already had a press conference.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
Yeah, but the analysis has an outcome that doesn't hold up to what could actually happen in real life. I don't think the Rays would deal Archer for what your analysis suggested was equal excess value - do you?
Here is a proposed package from the Cubs that supposedly wouldn't be enough for Sale:
Brandon K
3:35 Archer to cubs for Soler, Haap, Cease and a flier??
Steve Adams
3:36 Archer can be controlled for five years and $38.5MM -- his contract is even friendlier than Sale or Quintana. That's not getting it done.
That's Soler and all his potential, plus #21, #97 (with huge upside) and #99 prospects in the game.
The equivalent Braves package would be something like Newcomb (assuming he is about as valuable as Soler), plus Albies, plus Soroka, plus Maitan/Acuna...and that isn't enough. I'm guessing a realistic package for Archer starts with Mallex, plus Newcomb, plus Albies, plus one of Maitan/Acuna, plus one of the Rome arms.
Brandon K
3:35 Archer to cubs for Soler, Haap, Cease and a flier??
Steve Adams
3:36 Archer can be controlled for five years and $38.5MM -- his contract is even friendlier than Sale or Quintana. That's not getting it done.
That's Soler and all his potential, plus #21, #97 (with huge upside) and #99 prospects in the game.
The equivalent Braves package would be something like Newcomb (assuming he is about as valuable as Soler), plus Albies, plus Soroka, plus Maitan/Acuna...and that isn't enough. I'm guessing a realistic package for Archer starts with Mallex, plus Newcomb, plus Albies, plus one of Maitan/Acuna, plus one of the Rome arms.
Southcack77
Well-known member
I get the concern with Sale, but Archer throws his slider 40% of the time. I'd say he could well be a bigger injury risk. Sale could be injured but at this point, what pitcher isn't a tommy john risk at some point?
Southcack77
Well-known member
Also, can someone lay out for me why the Rays are so anxious to rid themselves of a guy who has been consistently pretty good, at times has looked like an All Star, and is signed cheaply for the long term?
If he is good for the Braves based on his fit into their time table, why wouldn't he be a similar fit for Rays? Just pondering the question. the only reason I can see for them to trade him is if they can get a truly jacked package in return that could set them up big time.
So I'm not sure that fits the thesis that he is the cheaper player to acquire.
If he is good for the Braves based on his fit into their time table, why wouldn't he be a similar fit for Rays? Just pondering the question. the only reason I can see for them to trade him is if they can get a truly jacked package in return that could set them up big time.
So I'm not sure that fits the thesis that he is the cheaper player to acquire.
Oklahomabrave
Anytime Now Frankie...
The Rays have a ton of pitching and the market behooves them.
They are much more likely to trade Odorizzi or Smyly, but Archer is the stud, so he's the guy folks like to chat about.
It's the Rays mo. If they can get a haul for Archer (and they could/will) then they will. Just like what the A's do.
GovClintonTyree
<B>Vencer a Los Doyers</B>
I was able to watch Archer up close in the bullpen before a start out here in Seattle and was impressed with his "easy gas." He's lanky (6'3") and long and uses a drop and drive approach - by that, I mean his big muscles carry the load. His mechanics are smooth and repeatable. He reminds me a bit of Jim Palmer.
Dr. Andrews says in his opinion breaking balls are not the cause of arm injuries, that it's overuse, poor mechanics, and lack of offseason rest.
Contrast that with Sale, who is a max effort guy and looks contorted when he delivers. I understand last year's drop in speed was because he no longer wants to "throw every single pitch as hard as I can."
Of course any pitcher can blow out any time, so it's really just knowing that, building it into your expectations, knowing you pay for five, you get four.
Sale should be fine rest-wise since he's never had to pitch in October.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
to be seen....it seems likely that Archer or Sale will be traded this off-season