Trade Inciarte or No?

[Horsehide Harry]

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.

I agree in principal. However, since the Braves are rebuilding, and contrary to the belief of some and the story-boarding of the FO, not a truly competitive team, looking to maximize Teheran's value 3 years out as opposed to taking best available two years out appears to be a better option to me. I might believe differently if I thought that Teheran would be the difference between a playoff team in 2017 and just missing the playoffs.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

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.

Agree. But, I think "make me an offer I can't refuse" needs to be said often by our GM. Certainly not "Teheran is untouchable."

 

[jimsnores]

Agree. But, I think "make me an offer I can't refuse" needs to be said often by our GM. Certainly not "Teheran is untouchable."

Definition of "untouchable" = Make me an offer I can't refuse.

 

[Enscheff]

I agree in principal. However, since the Braves are rebuilding, and contrary to the belief of some and the story-boarding of the FO, not a truly competitive team, looking to maximize Teheran's value 3 years out as opposed to taking best available two years out appears to be a better option to me. I might believe differently if I thought that Teheran would be the difference between a playoff team in 2017 and just missing the playoffs.

Right, Julio's max value to the Braves when they are actually good is almost certainly realized by trading him for a package centered around a couple Top 50 position prospects.

However, the reality of the situation is that at some point the Braves have to draw a line in the sand and declare the rebuild over. Once that line is drawn, improving the MLB team is once again paramount, and the exercise of collecting prospects stops.

Whether right or not, the Braves chose this offseason to draw that line to end the rebuild. At least they did it in such a way that they mortgaged very little of the future to "contend". I'm sure the new ballpark had a lot to do with that decision, but now that they are trying to get better, Julio stays.

 

[nsacpi]

even after the rebuild is over i hope we remain open to trades where we give up major league talent for prospects...as long as the return justifies it

 

[Deester11]

That had you written all over it. well played.

Yeah....ha.

 

[smootness]

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.

This is shortsighted. Were these just assets on paper, you would be right. But the goal of any team is to win and ultimately to win a championship. If you are constantly trading off your best pieces with 1-2 years remaining, you will constantly be a little worse than you could otherwise be. There's something to be said for putting the best team you can on the field, even if it means sacrificing some future value.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I was big on Eaton as a prospect a long time ago. I won't be surprised in the least if Ender out performs Eaton this year. And no I won't be measuring who had the better year based off of WAR.

 

[Enscheff]

This is shortsighted. Were these just assets on paper, you would be right. But the goal of any team is to win and ultimately to win a championship. If you are constantly trading off your best pieces with 1-2 years remaining, you will constantly be a little worse than you could otherwise be. There's something to be said for putting the best team you can on the field, even if it means sacrificing some future value.

Trying to win in any particular season is being shortsighted. The idea of maximizing the value of every single pitching asset as an organizational rule is the definition of looking long term. The exact opposite of being shortsighted.

If a pitcher with 1-2 years of control is projected to produce 2-6 wins over those 1-2 seasons, and they are traded for a prospect projected to produce 10+ wins over 5+ years of team control, the move to promote long term sustainability is to trade that pitcher...especially with how frequently pitchers break down and become worthless.

 

[mfree80]

This is shortsighted. Were these just assets on paper, you would be right. But the goal of any team is to win and ultimately to win a championship. If you are constantly trading off your best pieces with 1-2 years remaining, you will constantly be a little worse than you could otherwise be. There's something to be said for putting the best team you can on the field, even if it means sacrificing some future value.

Don't you know that Baseball is not a game... it is a Math problem.

 

[nsacpi]

Don't you know that Baseball is not a game... it is a Math problem.

a dynamic programming problem involving shadow prices and constrained optimization to be precise

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Trying to win in any particular season is being shortsighted. The idea of maximizing the value of every single pitching asset as an organizational rule is the definition of looking long term. The exact opposite of being shortsighted.

If a pitcher with 1-2 years of control is projected to produce 2-6 wins over those 1-2 seasons, and they are traded for a prospect projected to produce 10+ wins over 5+ years of team control, the move to promote long term sustainability is to trade that pitcher...especially with how frequently pitchers break down and become worthless.

I think I fall in the middle between what you are saying and what Smoot is saying. I think you evaluate a player and determine how easily they are replaced. IF you think you have a true ACE or a player with the makings of a True ACE pitcher, then I think you do everything you can to hold on to them because of scarcity. Same thing goes for a top three in baseball at his position type hitter. You also have to temper that with an understanding of what you have available in your own minor leagues.

For example, if you think, as I do, that Teheran is a good #2 and unlikely to get significantly better than that and very likely to tail off from that over time, then you have to decide how difficult would it be to replace his presence with an equal or better player either from within the organization or outside through trade acquisition or FA signing? Since the Braves have a number of pitchers believed to have AT LEAST that kind of upside, then I would say he's very much tradable, especially considering that the Braves aren't likely to be playoff competitive WITH him in the next two years.

However, I also think you can reach a point as an organization where as a FO you have to be willing to "go for it" or else you begin to lose the interest and loyalty of your fanbase. Take Pittsburgh as an example. They were horrible for 20 years. Then they started getting it right and building within. However, they haven't been able to push over that final hump and are now shopping players instead of adding players. It will be interesting to see how their fan base reacts. I think there is a danger that you could settle into baseball purgatory, never good enough to win anything nor bad enough to be forced to clean house and rebuild, by being too aggressive on shipping out talent for prospects in effort to remain close to competitive and keep payroll at a "manageable level."

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Definition of "untouchable" = Make me an offer I can't refuse.

I think untouchable should almost never be used. It creates the wrong impression with the player and fans. It's really lazy on the part of FO personnel.

They could easily say " it would be very hard to imagine a scenario where we would trade Teheran." That doesn't say untouchable and still conveys that if you want him it better be good. But as a FO you won't be perceived as breaking faith with the player or fans since you left the door open at least a crack.

 

[Enscheff]

The problem with holding in to a guy you consider an Ace is that the majority of Aces are only Aces for a few years. No matter how good they are, they will almost always decline after 2-3 years of Ace level pitching. Therefore, even an Ace's value is maximized by trading him when he has 2 years of control remaining.

Obviously 2 years of an Ace is going to bring back more in a trade than 2 years of a #3, so the returns need to be fair. That's one of the main reasons to shop them with 2 years remaining...the Braves still have the leverage of "not having to trade" the pitcher.

In any given year, the rotation should consist of a guy with 2+, 3+, and 4+ Years of control as well as one guy with 5+ years of control being broken in. The open spots should be filled by old league average veterans like Colon on short term deals.

Then keep the revolving door going. Yes, there will be a few times the Braves deal away David Price, but the majority of the times they will be dealing away Lincecum, Wainright, Harvey, or any of the majority of Aces that declined after a few years of dominance.

 

[Southcack77]

This is shortsighted. Were these just assets on paper, you would be right. But the goal of any team is to win and ultimately to win a championship. If you are constantly trading off your best pieces with 1-2 years remaining, you will constantly be a little worse than you could otherwise be. There's something to be said for putting the best team you can on the field, even if it means sacrificing some future value.

I agree with you. Personally, I think what the White Sox have done is pretty senseless. They are trading premium players on good contracts for prospects and are getting patted on the back for getting a good return? No **** they got a good return. They traded guys with outstanding value for a pu pu platter of potential. If you can't trade Chris Sale for a good return you are functionally retarded.

Maybe they should have figured out a way to you know win with their best players being cheap. There is a crazy idea.

 

[Southcack77]

I think I fall in the middle between what you are saying and what Smoot is saying. I think you evaluate a player and determine how easily they are replaced. IF you think you have a true ACE or a player with the makings of a True ACE pitcher, then I think you do everything you can to hold on to them because of scarcity. Same thing goes for a top three in baseball at his position type hitter. You also have to temper that with an understanding of what you have available in your own minor leagues.

For example, if you think, as I do, that Teheran is a good #2 and unlikely to get significantly better than that and very likely to tail off from that over time, then you have to decide how difficult would it be to replace his presence with an equal or better player either from within the organization or outside through trade acquisition or FA signing? Since the Braves have a number of pitchers believed to have AT LEAST that kind of upside, then I would say he's very much tradable, especially considering that the Braves aren't likely to be playoff competitive WITH him in the next two years.

However, I also think you can reach a point as an organization where as a FO you have to be willing to "go for it" or else you begin to lose the interest and loyalty of your fanbase. Take Pittsburgh as an example. They were horrible for 20 years. Then they started getting it right and building within. However, they haven't been able to push over that final hump and are now shopping players instead of adding players. It will be interesting to see how their fan base reacts. I think there is a danger that you could settle into baseball purgatory, never good enough to win anything nor bad enough to be forced to clean house and rebuild, by being too aggressive on shipping out talent for prospects in effort to remain close to competitive and keep payroll at a "manageable level."

I don't think you have near enough respect for the folks in the Braves front office. I feel like you believe they are going for it and they aren't. IF they were going for it they would have made some huge move - like signing Jason Castro -- and they haven't really tried to do that.

This front office is doing the same thing they did the last two year, but they are doing it with more money at the major league level. So their gambles on veterans on short term deals are for slightly further from the garbage heap and more well paid.

I think they think they've brought in some pieces where if everything goes right they might worm themselves into the playoff picture, but I don't think they really are counting on it. In fact, I think they've mostly signed veteran pieces to fill some gaps with the idea that they may be able to flip them as other options come on line. So I think they are still acquiring and re-ordering prospects and value.

And I think they have considered and thought about all of the things that are discussed here and have analyzed them with better tools than we have.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I don't think you have near enough respect for the folks in the Braves front office. I feel like you believe they are going for it and they aren't. IF they were going for it they would have made some huge move - like signing Jason Castro -- and they haven't really tried to do that.

This front office is doing the same thing they did the last two year, but they are doing it with more money at the major league level. So their gambles on veterans on short term deals are for slightly further from the garbage heap and more well paid.

I think they think they've brought in some pieces where if everything goes right they might worm themselves into the playoff picture, but I don't think they really are counting on it. In fact, I think they've mostly signed veteran pieces to fill some gaps with the idea that they may be able to flip them as other options come on line. So I think they are still acquiring and re-ordering prospects and value.

And I think they have considered and thought about all of the things that are discussed here and have analyzed them with better tools than we have.

Not sure where this comes from since I have often been on record as saying: The Braves FO know that they aren't real contenders; that they likely believe that they have no choice but to build the impression of trying to be competitive without actually doing it because of the new park; and that the timing of the rebuild is bad because the FO likely HAS to at least pretend to be building a 2017 competitive team which means that they likely won't be able to maximize the value of current assets in pursuit of the most efficient rebuild.

To me, it's clear that Inciarte and Teheran, if not now then at least soon like the trade deadline, should be moved for pieces that will help in future years. I felt the same way about Freeman but have mostly changed my mind because I want to see if he can be a real face of the franchise guy (perennial top three at his position in baseball) as he showed he could be the last half of last year. Will that happen? Maybe not but not for best baseball reasons but marketing reasons.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

The problem with holding in to a guy you consider an Ace is that the majority of Aces are only Aces for a few years. No matter how good they are, they will almost always decline after 2-3 years of Ace level pitching. Therefore, even an Ace's value is maximized by trading him when he has 2 years of control remaining.

Obviously 2 years of an Ace is going to bring back more in a trade than 2 years of a #3, so the returns need to be fair. That's one of the main reasons to shop them with 2 years remaining...the Braves still have the leverage of "not having to trade" the pitcher.

In any given year, the rotation should consist of a guy with 2+, 3+, and 4+ Years of control as well as one guy with 5+ years of control being broken in. The open spots should be filled by old league average veterans like Colon on short term deals.

Then keep the revolving door going. Yes, there will be a few times the Braves deal away David Price, but the majority of the times they will be dealing away Lincecum, Wainright, Harvey, or any of the majority of Aces that declined after a few years of dominance.

I think you can find a lot of Aces who stay Aces for some years. In current baseball you've got guys like Kershaw, Bumgarner, Sherzer, Price, Greinke (for multiple years), even Verlander to an extent who've shown that they are the best of the best in the game, year after year after year. But, they do get old and they can flame out, no question. If you deal an Ace, you have to get a return worthy of that Ace which I think the Chisox did with Sale.

 

[Carp]

The problem with holding in to a guy you consider an Ace is that the majority of Aces are only Aces for a few years. No matter how good they are, they will almost always decline after 2-3 years of Ace level pitching. Therefore, even an Ace's value is maximized by trading him when he has 2 years of control remaining.

Obviously 2 years of an Ace is going to bring back more in a trade than 2 years of a #3, so the returns need to be fair. That's one of the main reasons to shop them with 2 years remaining...the Braves still have the leverage of "not having to trade" the pitcher.

In any given year, the rotation should consist of a guy with 2+, 3+, and 4+ Years of control as well as one guy with 5+ years of control being broken in. The open spots should be filled by old league average veterans like Colon on short term deals.

Then keep the revolving door going. Yes, there will be a few times the Braves deal away David Price, but the majority of the times they will be dealing away Lincecum, Wainright, Harvey, or any of the majority of Aces that declined after a few years of dominance.

Nitpicking here, but Wainwright was dominant for more than just 3 or 4 years. He's been one of the best pitchers in baseball for nearly a decade. Not a good example.

 

[Heyward]

if a team offers a similar deal to Eaton yeah sure, but i wouldnt trade him just to trade him.