What's AA gonna do?

50PoundHead said:
Do crickets pay admission?
Click to expand...

Does that even matter at this point?

If they don't do this right, and they haven't so far, then you will see a very short lived high water mark with an early dive back into a rebuild.

Doing it my way, means they likely see a huge drop off in attendance in 2018, but, if they are smart and go after some big names (not the biggest necessarily) in FA 2018/2019, then they can sell the public and ticket buyers that they are through the rebuild and the new found investment in player talent proves it and that the worst from the previous management group is now behind them.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think AA would miss a fantastic opportunity to correct some of the mistakes of the past by doing nothing. By that, I likely don't mean what you think.

I think AA should use this offseason (new as GM/President, sanctions and fines from MLB, diminished or at least stagnant payroll, questionable personnel moves made by previous administration) to re-set the rebuild. Think about it: 1. The hope to shorten the rebuild time hasn't worked out. It looks like 2019/2020 will be the likely target date for a mixture of seasoned young players (Albies, Swanson, Acuna) to make a large enough impact to be really useful and for the young pitching to make a big impact (Wright, Soroka, Allard, etc.).

2. Keeping Inciarte, Freeman and especially Teheran really only made sense in the terms of the rebuild IF you could legitimately compete by 2017/18. Since that isn't going to happen, then keeping them through their contracts (Teheran) or until they are past their prime (Inciarte and Freeman) as holding spots on the way through to the expected competitive date, is a waste of resources.

3. MLB is going to levy some form of punishment. In almost all cases, that punishment will set back the talent level and potentially shorten the competition window. One way to avoid the punishment (assuming that MLB doesn't interfere with future draft picks or position) is to tank. Let's say MLB takes a couple of guys (Bae, Maitan), fines the Braves $5M and excludes them from the International market for 2 years. If the Braves tank, they trade Freeman, Inciarte, Teheran, Folty, etc. (essentially any player not very young and under control for 3 years AFTER 2020) then they will further stock the young minor league talent pool and will free money to participate in the loaded 2018/19 FA class and will secure early draft positions over the next two years. Plus, they could stockpile money in reserve for use on the International FA market during the first year that their record is good enough that their ML draft position is poor.

And they have the perfect excuse and opportunity to do it: blame everything on Coppy and the previous management and the resulting penalty from MLB. Say that the Braves will return to a strong team but current events have delayed that effort.

Then in ST 2018 you have Swanson and Albies face the best pitching possible early with the hope that you can justify sending them down a month or two (whatever is necessary) to regain control over their lost control year.
Click to expand...

63973727.jpg
 
I can’t imagine a team ever scuttling a rebuild effort before even attempting to open their window of contention.
 
A lot will depend on the penalties. I have no problem trading Teheran and not much of a problem trading Inciarte. Inciarte would all depend on big return. I just don't think you can trade Freeman because I don't think we'll get value back. Looking back on the Cubs and Astros re-builds, they were almost entirely built from within through the draft/international signings and wise use of free agency (and trades to take the last step up once the re-build was complete). About the only two notable bodies that either team traded were Samardzija (Cubs to A's for Russell and McKinney) and a pretty decent Freeman comp in Berkman (Astros to Yankees for Melancon and Paredes). Most of the rest of the re-build consisted of short-term free agents filling positions until the prospect waves hit. If anything, the Astros trading Happ to the Blue Jays was a sideways-step the likes of which I would want to avoid.
 
Enscheff said:
I can’t imagine a team ever scuttling a rebuild effort before even attempting to open their window of contention.
Click to expand...

Not intentionally. Some teams spend so many years in the wilderness it is the equivalent of multiple rebuilds without any real window.
 
nsacpi said:
Not intentionally. Some teams spend so many years in the wilderness it is the equivalent of multiple rebuilds without any real window.
Click to expand...

Coppolella's mistakes with the promotions of Swanson and Albies probably put a crimp in the length of the contention window, but if Anthropoulos doesn't further the stupidity, we should be ready to contend by 2020. Even if we lose a big fish in Maitain, there were plenty of smaller fish who are also infielders (Severino, Soto, Pena) in that signing class who might cushion the blow. We just need to let the younger guys come through the system and not sign anyone to an albatross-level contract. If we do sell-off, we have to ensure we get value back.
 
50PoundHead said:
A lot will depend on the penalties. I have no problem trading Teheran and not much of a problem trading Inciarte. Inciarte would all depend on big return. I just don't think you can trade Freeman because I don't think we'll get value back. Looking back on the Cubs and Astros re-builds, they were almost entirely built from within through the draft/international signings and wise use of free agency (and trades to take the last step up once the re-build was complete). About the only two notable bodies that either team traded were Samardzija (Cubs to A's for Russell and McKinney) and a pretty decent Freeman comp in Berkman (Astros to Yankees for Melancon and Paredes). Most of the rest of the re-build consisted of short-term free agents filling positions until the prospect waves hit. If anything, the Astros trading Happ to the Blue Jays was a sideways-step the likes of which I would want to avoid.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to trade anyone for the sake of trading them. If you can't get good value back for Freeman then you don't have to trade him. When Berkman was traded to the Yankees he was well past his prime at 34.

Let's say that you could trade Freeman and Teheran to the Astros for Kyle Tucker, Forrest Whitley and Yordan Alvarez, then I think you do that. If you could move Freeman to the Yankees for Torres, Florial and Andujar, I think you make that trade. Or other similar returns.

If you move Freeman for the right talent return, you also free up his salary obligation which is $21M. You could then: play Adams at 1B (at least until you find a taker, if there is one), and make a trade with the Marlins to add payroll without giving up much, something like: Ozuna and Tazawa for Wentz and Muller. You then flip Ozuna to St. Louis (or some other contender) for Piscotty, Carson Kelly and Nick Plummer.

Inciarte to the Cubs for Schwarber (Future 1B) or Happ (3B or OF)

You move Folty and Sam Freeman to Baltimore for Austin Hayes and Hunter Harvey.

You let Markakis and Freeman play out their contracts - no more throwing worse money after bad.

In 2018/19 FA you sign a 1B (could be a number of guys, some not currently 1B like Marwin Gonzalez, Smoak, Brian Dozier, LaMahieu, Murphy, my favorite would be Josh Donaldson. Add a SP or 2 depending on need.

Have:

1B Donaldson, Schwarber- 1B/LF with (Alvarez in training)
2B Albies
SS Swanson
3B Riley/ or Happ (or other as necessary)
RF Tucker
CF Acuna/or Happ
LF Piscotty/Hays/Schwarber
C Kelly

SP: Wright, Soroka, Allard, Newcomb, Whitley (with all kinds of other options)

PLUS, you assume a horrible 2018 record and a building but not great 2019 record...you pick top 3 in the draft after 2018, top 10 after 2019.

You are then through the worst of any sanctions, you have a solid young core that will be around through your window, you have money to add veteran help as needed, have the opportunity to really compete in 2020 (just like now) with an extended window supplied by waves of minor league talent (much still in the low minors due to good draft position over the next few years) and a war chest of money to be used when you get out of International market jail.

It means you have to accept that 2018 is punted (but that's something that team finances and potential ML punishment and prior management missteps seems to have already insured).
 
We’re making much more per ticket sold than at Turner Field. Atlanta is a very fickle market and the area is becoming more diverse with transplants from other regions than the South. We just had a huge PR hit with recent events.

It would be a very costly mistake to alienate fans and tank in 2018.
 
mfree80 said:
Who would have guessed that recent events would put Harry back on the "Trade Freeman" train?
Click to expand...

It's what have should been done to begin with. But now the timing is even better since Freeman had a great season in 2017 and put to bed any concerns regarding his wrist and power potential.

If the target in reality is 2019/2020 before the team really begins to enter its window of opportunity, and considering the apparent lack of increased finances and the implosion of the FO I can't see how anyone would see differently, then keeping Freeman really makes no sense unless he is around to carry the Dale Murphy role of "gotta have a name on the team no matter what." In 2019/2020 he will be 30/31 years old and heading into the final year of his contract in 2022. His best value is as a talent acquirer. His $21M can be used elsewhere to find a player or players to further add to the wave of talent that will actually be a part of any future years well within the competitive window.

As it is, just as the rest of the team begins to ascend into its window, Freeman will be entering an expensive decline yet everyone will say how valuable he is with is "veteran leadership" without acknowledging the fact that veteran leadership can be acquired every year, most often at very little cost. Smart teams pay players for their talent.

BTW, this is nothing against Freeman, who I like. It's just bad timing on his part. His prime, and his prime earning years, do not align with the overall strategy of the Braves.
 
I guess my point is that if we were to go into full "sell" mode, we won't get value back for Freeman. I don't see any of HH's suggested Freeman deals as plausible because other teams aren't going to fork that much over for him. Inciarte is a good player, but we may be able to get close to value if we were to trade him. I don't know what Teheran's market is right now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone at the 2018 deadline if the younger guys step up.
 
50PoundHead said:
I guess my point is that if we were to go into full "sell" mode, we won't get value back for Freeman. I don't see any of HH's suggested Freeman deals as plausible because other teams aren't going to fork that much over for him. Inciarte is a good player, but we may be able to get close to value if we were to trade him. I don't know what Teheran's market is right now, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him gone at the 2018 deadline if the younger guys step up.
Click to expand...

I think if we want to move Freeman, Inciarte and Teheran for high ceiling prospects, the trade deadline is a better time because contending teams are more incentivized to get that "final piece" that will get them to the WS. You take some risk your players might get hurt or otherwise lose value. But in general, the risk-reward favors moving guys like that at the deadline, especially Teheran who is coming off a poor season.

From a broader financial perspective, I think we want to approach this off-season by filling some obvious holes cheaply and without limiting future flexibility. We've reached a point with this team now that we can hope with some reasonable luck to play .500 or slightly better and keep fan interest longer into the season. But we also need to be opportunistic if the team has a poor first half and be open to moving Freeman, Teheran and Inciarte.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
It's what have should been done to begin with. But now the timing is even better since Freeman had a great season in 2017 and put to bed any concerns regarding his wrist and power potential.

If the target in reality is 2019/2020 before the team really begins to enter its window of opportunity, and considering the apparent lack of increased finances and the implosion of the FO I can't see how anyone would see differently, then keeping Freeman really makes no sense unless he is around to carry the Dale Murphy role of "gotta have a name on the team no matter what." In 2019/2020 he will be 30/31 years old and heading into the final year of his contract in 2022. His best value is as a talent acquirer. His $21M can be used elsewhere to find a player or players to further add to the wave of talent that will actually be a part of any future years well within the competitive window.

As it is, just as the rest of the team begins to ascend into its window, Freeman will be entering an expensive decline yet everyone will say how valuable he is with is "veteran leadership" without acknowledging the fact that veteran leadership can be acquired every year, most often at very little cost. Smart teams pay players for their talent.

BTW, this is nothing against Freeman, who I like. It's just bad timing on his part. His prime, and his prime earning years, do not align with the overall strategy of the Braves.
Click to expand...

We have a slew of young pitching on the way and severbal of those pitchers should arrive this year. We also have a pretty solid core of young positional players with Freeman, Acuna, Albies, Swanson, and Ender and possibly more on the way with Riley, Jackson, Maitan, and Pache. And your solution is to blow that up....

Again, I say: Worst. Idea. Ever.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
It's what have should been done to begin with. But now the timing is even better since Freeman had a great season in 2017 and put to bed any concerns regarding his wrist and power potential.

If the target in reality is 2019/2020 before the team really begins to enter its window of opportunity, and considering the apparent lack of increased finances and the implosion of the FO I can't see how anyone would see differently, then keeping Freeman really makes no sense unless he is around to carry the Dale Murphy role of "gotta have a name on the team no matter what." In 2019/2020 he will be 30/31 years old and heading into the final year of his contract in 2022. His best value is as a talent acquirer. His $21M can be used elsewhere to find a player or players to further add to the wave of talent that will actually be a part of any future years well within the competitive window.

As it is, just as the rest of the team begins to ascend into its window, Freeman will be entering an expensive decline yet everyone will say how valuable he is with is "veteran leadership" without acknowledging the fact that veteran leadership can be acquired every year, most often at very little cost. Smart teams pay players for their talent.

BTW, this is nothing against Freeman, who I like. It's just bad timing on his part. His prime, and his prime earning years, do not align with the overall strategy of the Braves.
Click to expand...

Braves are pretty close to contending in a few years if AA can make the right moves.

Problem with trading Freeman is we'll never get proper value for him so it makes no sense.
 
Heyward said:
Braves are pretty close to contending in a few years if AA can make the right moves.

Problem with trading Freeman is we'll never get proper value for him so it makes no sense.
Click to expand...

The White Sox have gotten very good returns on guys like Eaton, Sale and Quintana. This suggests that there would be a strong market for Freeman if we made him available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top