Winter Meetings Thread

bravesfanMatt said:
checks teams roster..

closer --- JJ.. Hmm, I guess they didn't ask your advice.

MM has been one of the most consistent, and arguable the best, closers in the game the last 4 years. I would have loved to get him for 4 years.. NOT at 60 million.. obtaining quality players is not a bad thing. even if we are not competing.
Click to expand...

Let's waste a ton of money on a closer to gain 1 win on a non competitive team. Makes a ton of sense.
 
striker42 said:
Absolutely, one of the reasons I wouldn't do it. However, I would seriously consider going after McCutchen if it meant flipping Markakis to another team and playing McCutchen in right.
Click to expand...

Cutch's arm barely plays in CF, it would not play at all in RF. Cutch would have been a great fit for the Braves if they had not already settled on Kemp in LF.
 
I don't see us being in on McCutchen. Doesn't make a ton of sense. We already have every OF spot filled plus Mallex. McCutchen would only be around for 2 more years. While he's probably a good bet to rebound from last year some he's probably not going to be his MVP level self again. It would be a win now move when we're not really set up for that. He makes way more sense for the Nats.
 
Enscheff said:
Cutch's arm barely plays in CF, it would not play at all in RF. Cutch would have been a great fit for the Braves if they had not already settled on Kemp in LF.
Click to expand...

The arm would be a problem. But since Markakis doesn't exactly have a cannon out there it wouldn't be a huge difference. Still, doesn't make sense in the long run. He's just tempting because he's fun to watch.
 
I could only see McCutchen if the Braves were to deal for someone like Sale. If you make the commitment for one (both financially and in terms of acquisition cost) then you signal going all in and there's logic behind adding the other. Acquiring either one by himself would leave something to be desired.

From a marketing point of view McCutchen would make more than complete and total sense. I think he's a worthy gamble offensively ... I don't know about defense. Is he completely worthless in the outfield now?
 
gilesfan said:
Let's waste a ton of money on a closer to gain 1 win on a non competitive team. Makes a ton of sense.
Click to expand...

you are crazy if you think a dominate closer is worth only one win because some stat says so. MM would slot everyone else down. Our pen would be shut down after 6 good for the next 4 years barring injury.

I also said I would not go to 60. But MM is worth it.
 
Hawk said:
I could only see a McCutchen deal if the Braves were to acquire someone like Sale. If you make the commitment for one (both financially and in terms of acquisition cost) then you signal going all in and it makes sense to add the other. Adding either one by himself would leave something to be desired.

From a marketing point of view McCutchen would make more than complete and total sense. I think he's a worthy gamble offensively ... I don't know about defense. Is he completely worthless in the outfield now?
Click to expand...

He's certainly not good. But, you know, Inciarte can cover for all 3 OF spots at one time.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
you are crazy if you think a dominate closer is worth only one win because some stat says so. MM would slot everyone else down. Our pen would be shut down after 6 good for the next 4 years barring injury.

I also said I would not go to 60. But MM is worth it.
Click to expand...

No,I used logic when considering the additional amount of wins. "some stat" would suggest less than 1 win.
 
gilesfan said:
No,I used logic when considering the additional amount of wins. "some stat" would suggest less than 1 win.
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree WAR is the best way to measure relief pitchers. In fact, not sure there is a great measure for relief pitchers besides FIP tbh.

Though I wholeheartedly agree that Melancon would be a bad target for this Braves team (and a great target for SF).

Edit: I see that your implying you weren't considering WAR.
 
chop2chip said:
Not sure I agree WAR is the best way to measure relief pitchers. In fact, not sure there is a great measure for relief pitchers besides FIP tbh.

Though I wholeheartedly agree that Melancon would be a bad target for this Braves team (and a great target for SF).

Edit: I see that your implying you weren't considering WAR.
Click to expand...

I agree. WAR may even overstate the value of a closer.
 
gilesfan said:
I agree. WAR may even overstate the value of a closer.
Click to expand...

WAR might overstate a closer but undervalues the BP collectively. Adding a dominate closer (relief pitcher) has more value than WAR could ever state. The pressure that it takes off the starters would be impossible to measure. plus the pressure the other team has knowing if it gets to the 6th inning without the lead, their chances of winning are greatly reduced.

I would have been ecstatic if we got MM at 4/50. No, I wouldn't want him at 4/62+ like the Giants did. But our pen was not as bad as the Giants either, so I understand their over pay.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
WAR might overstate a closer but undervalues the BP collectively. Adding a dominate closer (relief pitcher) has more value than WAR could ever state. The pressure that it takes off the starters would be impossible to measure. plus the pressure the other team has knowing if it gets to the 6th inning without the lead, their chances of winning are greatly reduced.

I would have been ecstatic if we got MM at 4/50. No, I wouldn't want him at 4/62+ like the Giants did. But our pen was not as bad as the Giants either, so I understand their over pay.
Click to expand...

Of course, because you should certainly rely on things you cannot quantify. Makes sense.
 
thethe said:
Should we ignore them and pretend they don't exist?
Click to expand...

If there is no determinable difference, then yes, it's all preconceived notions that makes people "feel" better. Like, "you can't go swimming for 20 minutes after you eat." The difference between a league average closer (something less than Johnson) and Melancon is really small. League average was something like 90% conversion rate in 1 run games last time I checked. Considering the best is not 100%, but something less than that and that the team will still win games that the closer blows; it is really stupid for a non world series contender to pay money for a closer.

Maybe if the team had just a terrible bullpen and a good closer would make a big difference, but that isn't the case here. For the Giants, Melancon makes a little bit of sense.
 
thethe said:
Should we ignore them and pretend they don't exist?
Click to expand...

that is the problem with Statistics. people who don't deal with them regularly, start to believe them. I can make a data set say 10 COMPLETELY different things and all be TRUE. I do it every day and I am dealing with money, not human performance. so because a HUMAN element of a game can't be measured, then you should completely disregard it and thus make decisions without that being a part of your evaluation. We should only make decisions based on spread sheets and computer models. Also, the nationals are Series champs 3 of the last 5 years.. Where's my Stats, Bro!
 
gilesfan said:
I agree. WAR may even overstate the value of a closer.
Click to expand...

How would you reconcile the prices paid by Cleveland and Chicago for Miller and Chapman? Boston and San Diego paid for Kimbrel? Those are all very smart front offices and they all effectively showed that WAR undervalues elite relief pitchers.
 
gilesfan said:
If there is no determinable difference, then yes, it's all preconceived notions that makes people "feel" better. Like, "you can't go swimming for 20 minutes after you eat." The difference between a league average closer (something less than Johnson) and Melancon is really small. League average was something like 90% conversion rate in 1 run games last time I checked. Considering the best is not 100%, but something less than that and that the team will still win games that the closer blows; it is really stupid for a non world series contender to pay money for a closer.

Maybe if the team had just a terrible bullpen and a good closer would make a big difference, but that isn't the case here. For the Giants, Melancon makes a little bit of sense.
Click to expand...

your error is comparing MM to another closer. You don't do that. You compare him to the pitcher that he would be replacing in the Braves BP. And a little hint, that wouldn't be JJ..
 
gilesfan said:
If there is no determinable difference, then yes, it's all preconceived notions that makes people "feel" better. Like, "you can't go swimming for 20 minutes after you eat." The difference between a league average closer (something less than Johnson) and Melancon is really small. League average was something like 90% conversion rate in 1 run games last time I checked. Considering the best is not 100%, but something less than that and that the team will still win games that the closer blows; it is really stupid for a non world series contender to pay money for a closer.

Maybe if the team had just a terrible bullpen and a good closer would make a big difference, but that isn't the case here. For the Giants, Melancon makes a little bit of sense.
Click to expand...

Odd you would cite conversion rate in a discussion about value.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
that is the problem with Statistics. people who don't deal with them regularly, start to believe them. I can make a data set say 10 COMPLETELY different things and all be TRUE. I do it every day and I am dealing with money, not human performance. so because a HUMAN element of a game can't be measured, then you should completely disregard it and thus make decisions without that being a part of your evaluation. We should only make decisions based on spread sheets and computer models. Also, the nationals are Series champs 3 of the last 5 years.. Where's my Stats, Bro!
Click to expand...

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