Trade Inciarte or No?

[GovClintonTyree]

If it was an insane deal, of course nobody is then "untouchable." Having said that, I'm sick of reading "trade Inciarte" comments here all the time.

It's an intriguing thought because it's probably our best leverage point, just as it was for the White Sox with Eaton. Then the intrigue is compounded by the broad range of opinions on Mallex Smith. So it's an interesting topic.

You could go plant bulbs or Christmas shop or something. The board will be here in February when spring training gets rolling.

 

[TheBravos]

I love me some Inciarte. He is my top three favorite players. You really can't have he and Mallex out there though (just not enough pop), because they are the same type player. I would much rather trade Mallex, but his value wouldn't be much. "If" you could get another franchise changing (ala Shelby Miller) trade...it would be worth looking at, with a capable guy like Mallex to replace him. That being said...it would have to be some kind of package. He's a special guy.

 

[chipchildress]

I predict the Braves will trade Ender only if they're guaranteed to get a former first round pick bust as part of the return...

 

[Chico]

I predict the Braves will trade Ender only if they're guaranteed to get a former first round pick bust as part of the return...

It's funny you say that as looking over the options I think a deal based around Inciarte and Mike Zunino could make sense. Although I think his last season brings him out of the bust category

 

[zbhargrove]

It's funny you say that as looking over the options I think a deal based around Inciarte and Mike Zunino could make sense. Although I think his last season brings him out of the bust category

He still looks like a bust... his last season wasn't really very good...

 

[UNCBlue012]

It's funny you say that as looking over the options I think a deal based around Inciarte and Mike Zunino could make sense. Although I think his last season brings him out of the bust category

No thank you. Mallex and Zunino, sure. But not Inciarte. No really to trade a solidified top of the order player for someone that is still unknown. Now Mallex and maybe another pitcher? Sure.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

No worse than the "trade Teheran" threads.

Good point. I also think the Braves should be open to trading Teheran given the right return.

 

[bravesfanMatt]

Good point. I also think the Braves should be open to trading Teheran given the right return.

That had you written all over it. well played.

 

[Chico]

He still looks like a bust... his last season wasn't really very good...

He's very good defensively. He's one of the better framers. He has middle of the order power. He's controlled for 4 more years.

He has a lot of value in today's market. His main problem was being rushed.

I'm not a big WAR guy, but his WAR last year based on plate appearances is in line with Ender's. 1.2WAR in 192 plate appearances and Ender is 3.6 in 578 plate appearances.

 

[smootness]

The answer to this, just like the answer to literally every 'Should ___ trade ____?' question ever, is, it depends on the return.

If the return is too good to pass up, sure. If it's not, no.

The Braves should be finding out what his value is around baseball, just like they should on most players, but I don't think they should be pushing beyond normal to make something happen.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

What I see with the team, and near ready prospects, is 4 guys who profile as either #1, #2 or #8 hitters: Inciarte, Mallex Smith, Albies, Swanson. As long as Albies isn't traded, which doesn't look to happen now, then he will be at 2B and Swanson will be at short. Inciarte and Mallex are both CF who don't hit enough to be LF or RF on a good team. That means that one or the other will likely be gone. Inciarte is more known as far as his level of big league play at this point which makes him much more valuable. Smith is more unknown and a bit of a gamble. BUT, if the organization truly believes in Acuna, then you limit the risk of Smith somewhat.

So, I think given the right return, Inciarte is the one you trade either now or at the trade deadline.

In terms of long term line-up construction you are looking at:

2B Albies
SS Swanson
1B Freeman
LF/RF/3B - ?
LF/RF/3B - ?
LF/RF/3B - ?
C - ?
CF - Smith

If you keep BOTH Inciarte AND Smith then you are looking at something like:

CF Inciarte
2B Albies
SS Swanson
1B Freeman
LF/RF/3B - ?
LF/RF/3B - ?
C - ?
LF - Smith

In that scenario Swanson would have to really, really improve as a run producer for that to be a viable offense.

While what I think it more likely you will see long term is more like:

2B Albies
SS Swanson
CF Acuna
1B Freeman
LF/RF/3B - ?
LF/RF/3B - ?
LF/RF/3B - ?
C - ?

 

[Russ2dollas]

It looks like Eaton in CF is not a better player than Inciarte. Eaton in RF might be. Eaton is a much better hitter.

Teams also seem to like cost control. Eaton has a fixed cost and Inciarte isn't fixed b/c he's arb.

I think it would have to be a very unique team to fit us like that. B/c we wouldn't want a prospect haul as much as guys who are ready now or ready in a year. Maybe Cubs and Astros?

 

[nsacpi]

It looks like Eaton in CF is not a better player than Inciarte. Eaton in RF might be. Eaton is a much better hitter.

Teams also seem to like cost control. Eaton has a fixed cost and Inciarte isn't fixed b/c he's arb.

I think it would have to be a very unique team to fit us like that. B/c we wouldn't want a prospect haul as much as guys who are ready now or ready in a year. Maybe Cubs and Astros?

i'd make the trade for the right prospect haul...prospects are fungible

 

[gilesfan]

It looks like Eaton in CF is not a better player than Inciarte. Eaton in RF might be. Eaton is a much better hitter.

Teams also seem to like cost control. Eaton has a fixed cost and Inciarte isn't fixed b/c he's arb.

I think it would have to be a very unique team to fit us like that. B/c we wouldn't want a prospect haul as much as guys who are ready now or ready in a year. Maybe Cubs and Astros?

There has been a lot written over the past two weeks on Eaton and outfield defense. It has been very interesting. Kind of a hot topic since clearly the trade is based heavily on WAR or some type of internal equivalent of WAR.

Mitchel Lictman wrote a piece that basically said it was dumb to believe a player can't play center field, but can play right field. There have been a couple other articles around....

https://mglbaseball.com/2016/12/09/do-adam-eatons-unusual-outfield-defensive-numbers-mean-anything/

Eaton was +11 in 2014 and then -14 in 2015 in his mid-20s. There really shouldn't be any cause of that type of shift unless it was just fluke sample size issues. The White Sox explained it as a shoulder issue causing the issues on defense. After strong defense in 2014 and 2016, I would lean toward injury or fluke.

Eaton isn't a 6 WAR player, but I think he will provide neutral to positive defense in CF with a 120 wRC+. Probably 4 to 5 WAR. Inciarte is probably 100 to 105 wRC+ and 3.5 to 4.5 WAR.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

It looks like Eaton in CF is not a better player than Inciarte. Eaton in RF might be. Eaton is a much better hitter.

Teams also seem to like cost control. Eaton has a fixed cost and Inciarte isn't fixed b/c he's arb.

I think it would have to be a very unique team to fit us like that. B/c we wouldn't want a prospect haul as much as guys who are ready now or ready in a year. Maybe Cubs and Astros?

Keeping in mind what the Chisox got paid for Eaton, I think a deal with the Cubs: Inciarte for Jimenez and Happ is comparable. The White Sox got Giolito, Lopez and Dunning for Eaton.

The Braves would use Jimenez as the RF of the future (hopefully) and Happ as the LF of the future (hopefully).

Future long term line up could be:

2B Albies
SS Swanson
LF Happ
1B Freeman
RF Jimenez
3B - ?
CF - Acuna
C - ?

If the Cubs wouldn't do that then I would do a Jimenez, Cease, Candelario for Inciarte trade.

Future long term line up could be:

2B Albies
SS Swanson
CF Acuna
1B Freeman
RF Jimenez
3B - Candelario
LF - ?
C - ?

Houston is a bit tougher to find a deal but maybe: Inciarte for Tucker, Whitley and Paulino.

2B Albies
SS Swanson
CF Acuna
1B Freeman
3B - ?
RF Tucker
LF - ?
C - ?

 

[Knucksie]

No worse than the "trade Teheran" threads.

Maybe when the new regime was in "remove all Wren contract extensions" mode, it had some wheels, and they might well have actually entertained offers. Think he's a keeper too, but think he's too inconsistent to ever be the staff ace that he was projected to be when first coming up.

 

[Russ2dollas]

There has been a lot written over the past two weeks on Eaton and outfield defense. It has been very interesting. Kind of a hot topic since clearly the trade is based heavily on WAR or some type of internal equivalent of WAR.

Mitchel Lictman wrote a piece that basically said it was dumb to believe a player can't play center field, but can play right field. There have been a couple other articles around....

https://mglbaseball.com/2016/12/09/do-adam-eatons-unusual-outfield-defensive-numbers-mean-anything/

Eaton was +11 in 2014 and then -14 in 2015 in his mid-20s. There really shouldn't be any cause of that type of shift unless it was just fluke sample size issues. The White Sox explained it as a shoulder issue causing the issues on defense. After strong defense in 2014 and 2016, I would lean toward injury or fluke.

Eaton isn't a 6 WAR player, but I think he will provide neutral to positive defense in CF with a 120 wRC+. Probably 4 to 5 WAR. Inciarte is probably 100 to 105 wRC+ and 3.5 to 4.5 WAR.

I may read the article when I can. I have not read it.

It's not dumb to me. CF does require more range IMO. RF does require more arm IMO. I don't think the angles are the same. And in MLB there are some interesting corner OFs where it can be different game to game. Other than the hill in Houston, I think most CF is a wide area.

The year to year fluctuations are a big knock against the defensive metrics people. The impact of pre-pitch positioning does too.

But I think what you wrote matches me. I said not a better player. If both are 1.5 WAR max or maybe 0.5 WAR then they are pretty dang similar.

I don't think the defensive side is as important as some so I'd take the extra 0.050 OPS everyday. But this is not a slam dunk argument.

The question for the Braves is can you find the team that has a load of young talent and is a really good CF with an ok bat away from a title in their eyes? I think that could be the cubs but I doubt they'd do that. They could play Heyward in CF. And I think the Braves would ask for someone that plays right away, like Baez, and that would be a deal breaker.

I think the Braves feel good about these long term options:
CF: Inciarte
corner OF: Dustin Peterson-it seems like the consensus is he's a positive WAR player this year or next
SS-Dansby
2B-Albies
1b-FF

So we'd have to get 3B, C, TOR SP or corner OF. Catcher is prob the weakest spot in baseball. 3b might be next. TOR SP is probably the most valuable thing in baseball. And a corner OF would have a Markakis and Kemp issue. I don't think Markakis is blocking anyone now, but maybe he and Kemp do if you love Peterson and the guy you get for Inciarte.

I just don't see the braves taking back someone who hasn't done well at the AA level or better unless they were some super stud prospect (who we aren't getting for Inciarte IMO).

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Maybe when the new regime was in "remove all Wren contract extensions" mode, it had some wheels, and they might well have actually entertained offers. Think he's a keeper too, but think he's too inconsistent to ever be the staff ace that he was projected to be when first coming up.

I agree. I do think that IF you spend 2-3 years gathering all the young pitching you can get, then you should be open to trading older pitching (even if it's not really old), given the right return, unless you think that player is the rarest of all pitchers, a true ACE.

I look at it this way:

Who has more current value: Teheran OR Allard (change Allard with Touki or Fried or Soroka or Newcomb or Anderson....as you wish)?

The answer is easy. Today it is Teheran because he is a known commodity at the ML level while all the others are projections. So, at this moment in time Teheran is more valuable, no question.

But what about 2-3 years from now?

That answer is not known and is unknowable because you have to project the capabilities of the prospects but also now must project the capabilities of Teheran. Will he be healthy? Will he be as effective? Less? More? You know he will be more costly but still cheap on a relative basis.

When you look at Teheran and project his future 2-3 years from now, you are making an educated guess or bet on what he will be based on the evidence of what he was and his ML stability. To a certain extent the same is being done with the pitching prospects but based on more limited historical information and impacted by unstable growth. So, projecting prospects is more of a gamble than projecting an established ML, but with less monetary downside. You mitigate that through numbers, and the Braves have numbers. So chances are, if the scouts and FO have done good work, then 2-3 years from now the Braves will have 1 or more pitchers just as good or better than Teheran is today and possibly much better than Teheran will be then.

Now, if you believe Teheran will become an ACE, providing huge value because of his performance and rarity, then you gamble by keeping him every time. If you believe, as I do, that he is very unlikely to be any better then than he is now, and potentially much worse, then moving him for the right return is an attractive option.

 

[Enscheff]

The Braves should be looking to sell high on ALL pitchers when they have 1-2 years of control remaining. I'm not saying the "right return", I am saying they need to actively shop them and take the best return available. The only exception being if a pitcher is coming off injury and needs to prove he is healthy. Teheran has 3 years left, so after this season they need to be looking to sell high.

The ongoing game plan should be to have the rotation filled with homegrown pitchers, and fill in the blanks with guys like Colon. Extend these pitchers when possible, but never guarantee any years past the age of 30. Use them up, then flip them before they break.

 

[Knucksie]

I agree. I do think that IF you spend 2-3 years gathering all the young pitching you can get, then you should be open to trading older pitching (even if it's not really old), given the right return, unless you think that player is the rarest of all pitchers, a true ACE.

I look at it this way:

Who has more current value: Teheran OR Allard (change Allard with Touki or Fried or Soroka or Newcomb or Anderson....as you wish)?

The answer is easy. Today it is Teheran because he is a known commodity at the ML level while all the others are projections. So, at this moment in time Teheran is more valuable, no question.

But what about 2-3 years from now?

That answer is not known and is unknowable because you have to project the capabilities of the prospects but also now must project the capabilities of Teheran. Will he be healthy? Will he be as effective? Less? More? You know he will be more costly but still cheap on a relative basis.

When you look at Teheran and project his future 2-3 years from now, you are making an educated guess or bet on what he will be based on the evidence of what he was and his ML stability. To a certain extent the same is being done with the pitching prospects but based on more limited historical information and impacted by unstable growth. So, projecting prospects is more of a gamble than projecting an established ML, but with less monetary downside. You mitigate that through numbers, and the Braves have numbers. So chances are, if the scouts and FO have done good work, then 2-3 years from now the Braves will have 1 or more pitchers just as good or better than Teheran is today and possibly much better than Teheran will be then.

Now, if you believe Teheran will become an ACE, providing huge value because of his performance and rarity, then you gamble by keeping him every time. If you believe, as I do, that he is very unlikely to be any better then than he is now, and potentially much worse, then moving him for the right return is an attractive option.

That was the justification for going after Sale, so that Teheran wouldn't have to be de facto #1 (albeit on a bottom feeder team). The possiblity of being #2 on a more talented team, than one year ago, makes him better. With reinforcements coming up over the next couple of seasons, there might well be a future staff ace in that collection of arms. He could still improve by having a better team surrounding him. However, he's also going to be susceptible to those games when he gets knocked around. Hopefully it won't affect his confidence and he can bounce back quickly for the next start.

His contract is still very reasonable by current standards. Eventually, it's not hard thinking that they could move him before the end of this contract. Until then, he's somebody whom they can build around...until an offer that you can't refuse comes along.