Braves acquire garcia

Projections have their place, but we have to understand that they are just plugging numbers into a formula that cant account for much of the context of development. We just went through this with Swanson. You have to be a super stud prospect putting up big time stats to get projected to be good right when you hit the majors. You have to be a Mike Trout , Cory Seager, Mondcada, etc to get projected to do well right away in the majors. Thats the biggest weakness in the projection systems and where the Braves are the strongest. I dont know which prospects are going to flip the switch and have a break out season but you cant get this much talent together without some of them vastly exceeding expectations. 1 season is still a relatively small sample size. We could be propelled to the playoffs by the hot bat of Matt Lipka for all we know. Baseball is funny like that.
 
striker42 said:
Gant and Ellis could end up as pretty good relievers very soon. Considering how pedestrian Garcia was last year, the fact he's almost a FA, and what he's owed, it's a steep price.
Click to expand...

Gant yes, Ellis no. Ellis needs at least 1 more year in AAA, prolly 2. 6.52 ERA and a ~1:1 K:BB ratio ain't gonna get it done.
 
It's a low risk move to make the team a bit more palatable next season. I'm fine with the trade. Coppy's done a good job this offseason. I think it's unfair to assume that Coppy is the one deciding how competitive the Braves should be while moving into their new stadium.

I think it's fair to say we've potentially added about 4ish WAR to the rotation next season, while giving away nothing but a lot of money for one season (who cares?), a couple of potential useful middle relievers and a potential 4th OF.

And the chances of us earning back the prospects we lost is pretty decent given that we have 3 pitchers to potentially sell.
 
I think this is more of the "build the illusion of a contender, but keep flexibility for when the illusion crashes" strategy.

As for what was given up I don't have much of an issue: Dykstra was a non-prospect if his name was Jones. Gant and Ellis are back end/LR guys who are behind a number of others who are better qualified for those roles. So, what was given up for Garcia doesn't really bother me. To me, the question is why trade for Garcia at all?

Could the Braves have proposed a Dykstra, Ellis, Gant trade to Milwaukee for Matt Garza and OF Brett Phillips or SS Gilbert Lara? Milwaukee HATES Garza (he's been a headcase there) and they are definitely cutting payroll and rebuilding and might send a decent prospect back to get rid of him. He makes about the same money and probably has a similar performance profile to be expected. But, he's not LH and might be bad in the clubhouse.
 
Hawk said:
Well, in the grand scheme of things, I don't think Jaime Garcia - even circa 2015 - is a difference maker for this team (as currently constructed).

I believe Gant (a Savannah native) has a shot at being a decent swingman/long-reliever or reliable bottom of the rotation option. Ellis and Dykstra were largely inconsequential pieces.

Obviously, I can see the potential positives here too ... but we're talking about a $12MM player who wasn't certain to even crack St. Louis' starting rotation this season and who has never exactly been a world beater either.
Click to expand...

No one's ever made Garcia out to be an "Ace" - that said, he was brought in for not only spare parts, but the best one of them is someone you admit has swingman/long-reliever written all over him (that we got for 2 months of KJ) at best.

When healthy, Garcia's posted strong numbers. At what point do you see Gant with a 3.57 ERA with a 3.56 FIP??? The money's obviously not an issue, and the brass has stated since day one that they intended to put a solid product on the field when they opened the new park. As has been mentioned earlier, this deal allows them to do so without spending much (if any) prospect capital.

How many people were lining up for ANY of the prospects that have been dealt this week - honestly?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think this is more of the "build the illusion of a contender, but keep flexibility for when the illusion crashes" strategy.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. And I think this is a smart strategy. I think it's important to point out that Coppy probably isn't the guy deciding that the Braves should create this illusion going into next season. Coppy's strategy is better than giving up the farm for an ace or handing out a long term deal for a free agent.
 
Ozzie Swanson said:
Why would the Braves want Garza? We have a lot of young (possibly impressionable) players. Garza is a fairly average pitcher who has proven to be a total nut job wherever he's been.
Click to expand...

The Braves wouldn't want Garza other than he likely has a similar win profile as Garcia. The Braves should want Garza because they might be able to get a chance on a real and needed talent that would come along with him.

Right now, IMO, the realistic hope has to be that Garcia pitches well and stays healthy and has some trade value at the deadline. He makes $12M.

Get Garza out of Milwaukee and their bandbox and he might have equal or better trade value at the deadline as Garcia AND he would come with a good prospect as a "pain management" piece. He also makes $12.5M.

And, as far as young and impressionable players, my question would be where? And Who? All the young pitching talent is going to be in the minors with Colon, Dickey, Teheran and Folty as the other rotation pieces opposite a supposed Garza. Even the pen wouldn't have much in the way of super young guys. It's not like you intend to keep him forever (or even Garcia, Colon and Dickey). You also pay a Manager for a reason.
 
Garcia can be an effective pitcher, but has battled injuries the last couple seasons. I like the idea of actually adding a quality veteran, but this move doesn't make a lot of sense for this team. I just don't know how the club will manage to recover after the loss of John Gant.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think this is more of the "build the illusion of a contender, but keep flexibility for when the illusion crashes" strategy.

As for what was given up I don't have much of an issue: Dykstra was a non-prospect if his name was Jones. Gant and Ellis are back end/LR guys who are behind a number of others who are better qualified for those roles. So, what was given up for Garcia doesn't really bother me. To me, the question is why trade for Garcia at all?

Could the Braves have proposed a Dykstra, Ellis, Gant trade to Milwaukee for Matt Garza and OF Brett Phillips or SS Gilbert Lara? Milwaukee HATES Garza (he's been a headcase there) and they are definitely cutting payroll and rebuilding and might send a decent prospect back to get rid of him. He makes about the same money and probably has a similar performance profile to be expected. But, he's not LH and might be bad in the clubhouse.
Click to expand...

I hate Garza. Nobody has done less with more in the last decade.
 
I have no opinion on this trade. Gant was probably a decent piece but that's about it. We get back a pitcher who if he does well we can probably trade for a much better prospect.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I hate Garza. Nobody has done less with more in the last decade.
Click to expand...

Understand, but that's beside the point. The point isn't Garza, it's Phillips or Lara if you can get them.

Think of it this way: Assume both Garcia and Garza have an equally good first half for the Braves but are traded at the deadline. You start your return for Garza with the fact that you already got Phillips simply because Garza was a headcase. Now, argument could be made that if both pitched equally well, Garcia would be worth more in trade simply because he's LH and NOT a headcase. But, would that extra worth be enough to offset the acquisition of a Phillips?
 
zitothebrave said:
I have no opinion on this trade. Gant was probably a decent piece but that's about it. We get back a pitcher who if he does well we can probably trade for a much better prospect.
Click to expand...

Basically all that needs to be said to summarize this deal.
 
zitothebrave said:
I have no opinion on this trade. Gant was probably a decent piece but that's about it. We get back a pitcher who if he does well we can probably trade for a much better prospect.
Click to expand...

I agree with you but disagree with your first sentence. You do have an opinion and you stated it. One grump that I think is more than fair is pointing out that Ellis was a pretty big part of the Simmon's trade and now we're suddenly including him as a throw in? Huge fail on the Simmon's trade unless Newcomb turns into something.
 
weso1 said:
I agree with you but disagree with your first sentence. You do have an opinion and you stated it. One grump that I think is more than fair is pointing out that Ellis was a pretty big part of the Simmon's trade and now we're suddenly including him as a throw in? Huge fail on the Simmon's trade unless Newcomb turns into something.
Click to expand...

Kinda my thoughts on the Simmons deal. Imagine Simmons at short and Swanson at 2b
 
Going to piss a few people off by talking about an ace proposal, but where's there is smoke there is fire....

Braves get Archer and Longoria

Rays get Inciarte, Folty, albies, Allard
 
zitothebrave said:
I have no opinion on this trade. Gant was probably a decent piece but that's about it. We get back a pitcher who if he does well we can probably trade for a much better prospect.
Click to expand...

Exact problem with this team is in your last sentence. Always looking to trade for prospects instead of trying acquire real MLB players.
 
bravesfanforlife88 said:
Going to piss a few people off by talking about an ace proposal, but where's there is smoke there is fire....

Braves get Archer and Longoria

Rays get Inciarte, Folty, albies, Allard
Click to expand...

What about Teheran and Cabrera for Baez and Calanderio. Then Albies, Newcomb, Soroka, Riley for Archer.

Inciarte

Swanson

FF

Kemp

Baez

Markakis

Garcia/Calanderio

Flowers

Archer

Folty

Garcia

Colon

Dickey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top