I'm not advocating making a trade for a TOR guy right now. I think we'd go for a bat moreso than we'd go for a pitcher if we made a "big move" right now and I also think we'd be taking money back in a deal. I don't know why you continuously refer to these "folks" when replying to me. I have no idea who you are talking about. I'm more or less trying to see which pitchers are sell high candidates. If you have no feedback then that's ok.
Ineresting Note About Pitching Ceilings...
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
I'm not advocating making a trade for a TOR guy right now. I think we'd go for a bat moreso than we'd go for a pitcher if we made a "big move" right now and I also think we'd be taking money back in a deal. I don't know why you continuously refer to these "folks" when replying to me. I have no idea who you are talking about. I'm more or less trying to see which pitchers are sell high candidates. If you have no feedback then that's ok.
If we make a trade this offseason I think it'll be for an OF'er. There seems to be at least enough intrigue between Camargo and Riley that you could wait a year on 3B. We don't have any OF'er who are remotely close. Pache should Ender's heir apparent and Acuna should be the RF of the future. We have nobody else slated in the OF for the future except Waters.
The Braves only sell high candidates (guys who are likely to be at their peak trade value right now and are somewhat expendable) are Sam Freeman, Camargo, and Riley. All the pitching prospects have so many questions they can very easily increase value. The only guy who is pretty well known is Soroka (an almost guaranteed 3/4) , and that's probably why the Braves don't want to trade him, and why he likely isn't enough to headline a package for a TORP.
The reasons you want to trade Folty, Touki, Allard and the others you list are the same reasons they won't hold much value. They are not sell high candidates. They are "sell because they have serious question marks" candidates.
The only problem with trading for/signing someone to eventually play LF is that Kemp is going to be in the way. Unless AA is willing (and has the OK) to eat money to get rid of him, his presence will make for a really tough clubhouse environment if you try to make him a pinch-hitter/part-time player. If you bring in someone else (or once you promote Acuna) things are liable to get dicey with Matt around.
Assuming AA can clear the Kemp scenario up, one scenario we could hope for is that Stanton goes to San Francisco and we could actually help St. Louis land Ozuna. If they would unload Piscotty's money for a couple of our second-tier guys - say Wentz and Wilson - they could turn around and pair one or both of them with Flaherty/Hudson and an OF prospect and have Ozuna AND the money to play on a Holland/Davis to close.
I look at GM talk as politician talk. I rarely believe it and whatever they do say has another agenda behind it. The one constant from AA's quotes or leaks of quotes has been defense. He's either being straight up or giving a hint that Kemp and Nick are gone. Either way I cannot see Kemp here next year. I think he's as good as gone.
I'm not so convinced Kemp is gone no matter what, but I certainly wouldn't bet against your opinion that he is.
I think he is much more likely to be a Brave on opening day than MAdams was, and about even with how likely Jace and Santana were.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I'm a well documented Pozzi-Brave... but so many of your posts just make me put my head in my hands. Like as is so often the case, you are apparently missing the real message of past criticisms of drafting and hoarding so much pitching. When you do that and say you want to use your pitching depth for offensive trades... and then the only trade rumors you hear about are packaging prospects for front line starters... it makes even the Pozziest of Braves fandom scratch their collective heads. At least, if they are anchored in the real world. Not sure if you are by many of your comments. No one was bemoaning the ceiling of our pitching prospects... in fact it is well documented that pitching prospects labeled as 1's or 2's are very rare simply because pitching is so volatile and mental. It has been documented and talked about here that pitching prospects are graded very conservatively in their early/first years simply because there is so much more volatility and uncertainty regarding pitching vs. position. As pitchers have more success and sustain that success through higher levels with few documented chronic injury problems and signs of mature growth, their grades and projectability then also evolve to 1's and 2's (hence what you are seeing and this post proves... and by the way, how is this an "interesting note" about pitching... its just a subjective list by one service... there is literally no substance and zero wisdom learned from this post). Remember when we drafted Lucas Sims? He was a big name out of HS... tons of people on this board and some in the scouting community said he had the raw stuff to develop into a 1 or a 2... most pundits loved the pick. However, no one is going to project that from a HS player with no pro ball under his belt... or even one with a season or two or Rookie Ball/A Ball. If I remember, Sims was projected early on as a number 3 with the raw stuff to project him higher as he grew/matured. Now look, he's going to be lucky to be a 4 or a 5 and will most likely end up in the pen. That's just one obvious example of countless across our organization and the entire league. Newcomb always had the raw stuff to be a one or two... but scouts noticed a trend that he has a continued inability to adjust his control. I haven't seen any evidence that he has improved his control now in his mid 20s. Say what you want about him being a cold weather kid, but at this stage he has tons of innings under his belt in pro ball... if he was going to be successful in adjusting his control problems, it is unlikely it will magically happen at this point. This is why scouts have consistently said he's a number 3 or back end guy... and have always said if he could control his raw stuff, he could be an ace. That's just one more example, but like always... you only hear what you want to hear. We all do to some extent, but its kind of crazy with you.
So good! We have finally gotten some of our prospects to the level where they are being projected as possible 1's or 2's... the problem is that when we started this "pitching first, get all the pitching" philosophy... our most promising guys like Gohara/Wright/Anderson were nowhere in site. Allard was supposed to be an ace out of HS if he stayed healthy, but his velocity has dipped and now he remains as a projected 3-5, even with the fast promotion. Yet the initially unheralded Soroka has surpassed him and was always supposed to be just a mid to back end control workhorse early on (are you getting the volatility yet?)
Think of the most hyped pitching prospects the past 10-20+ years or so:
Kerry Wood - pretty good but always injured, ended up a bullpen guy
Prior - brief season of being dominate... injuries and mechanics ruined him... oh yeah and the big debate was between him and Joe Mauer for 1 and 2 pick overall that year, the guy who may go to the HOF and is still playing as a productive MLB player and was a star at his peak (think the Cubs would have rather drafted him if they had the option, you know, who the Twins only drafted no. 1 because he was a hometown guy?)
Strasburg - injury problems, great at times... good to average usually... very good overall, but nowhere near the hype when he was drafted as the uber pitching prospect)
Van Poppel - man sure wished we could have gotten him instead of Chipper, oh wait...
Kershaw - great pitcher, one of the best... but he was even considered neck and neck with Hanson (who was actually the more favored prospect for a while by a thin margin)... we all know that result
Now think of the most hyped hitting prospects (Arod, Griffey, Chipper, Harper, Trout, Mauer, Andruw, Pat "The Bat" Burrell, JD Drew, Heyward, Matt Weiters):
5 of those guys are easy HOFers (Chipper, Trout, Griffey, Arod even with his controversy, and Harper if he stays healthy), 2 are possible to likely HOF (Mauer and Andruw), Burrell won't go into the Hall but he was a very good player and a star hitter at his peak during a dominate Phillies stretch. Drew was an elite talent who had a couple very good years, but he had the mental maturity of a 5 year old and had consistent nagging injuries. We know about Heyward and his history - solid player and great defender. Weiters is serviceable but nothing much... a good starter fit on an already loaded team.
From everything I can find on the net, these are the most hyped prospects for each kind of player in the past ~25-30ish years... do you see the obvious trend? Its a microcosm of the larger macrocosm...
So the Braves say, lets just draft and hoard a ton of them... that way we can hit on that rare Kershaw, Verlander, or Halladay... maybe we find one or two solid prospects who end up emerging as the ace like a Cliff Lee. Even if I didn't really want that strategy exactly, I could at least understand it. Develop the studs and trade the ones who you think miss their ceilings for impact hitters and it works. Therein lies the problem... we didn't and still never have (you could argue Swanson and Inciarte, but Swanson hasn't shown much and Inciarte is a very good player, but you cannot call him an impact bat in the lineup. Besides, organizational pitching growth and depth wasn't even what was used to acquire them).
Instead we've heard for 2+ years that Coppy wanted to trade from our great pitching depth for... you guessed it... a front line pitcher or two. Sorry, but that's where I can't follow anymore, even if a Sale or Archer was an exciting idea, etc... that is completely the opposite of the advertised plan.
What happened is the first wave of pitching prospects by in large failed and the FO panicked. We even used offense to buy our current best pitching prospect (Gohara) - not that I was against that... I think it ended up being brilliant value for Mallex.
This has all been talked about on the board many times, and I know I did nothing to help you understand, because again like always, you only hear what you want to hear/read what you want to read. However, we just better hope that our better SP prospects become that Kershaw, etc and we don't trade away our Cliff Lee or Jake Arietta.
For every Strasburg, there are 7-10 Todd Van Poppels... I'd say for every Harper there are prob 3-5 Wieters/Heywards (who at least still end up being decent every day players instead of being completely out of baseball rather quickly like Prior/Wood).
Volatility and impatience to develop the young guys coupled with panic = the reason for these discussions and head scratching... even for us grounded Pozzies.
Its clear I don't love Enscheff, but come on man... its like you're just consistently putting the rare steak out for the tiger...
If you don't like me, why do you pump me up in your sig?
I hear a lot about us drafting pitching the last few years, but then when I go back and look at the results I wonder what would have been the preference.
In 2015 you had some good bats Bregman, Benentindi, Rogers, Happ, Tucker, but they were all gone by #15 when we picked Allard except for Trent Clark. He's not even in the Brewers top 30. We then picked Soroka and then Riley in the comepetive balance round and Lucas Hebert after that in the 2nd. Maybe we could have picked Daz Cameron instead of Soroka, but I'm glad we didn't.
In 2016 you had Corey Ray who's sporting a .679 OPS right now and Kyle Lewis we could've drafted over Ian Anderson. Moniack and Senzel were gone. An argument can be made that Lewis is better than Anderson and nobody could say either way right now, more of a push. There were quesiton marks about Lewis (there was a reason he fell to #11) and Anderson had already agreed to go underslot. Taylor Tramell went 5 picks before Wentz in the CBA. I'd rather have Tramell than Wentz but he wasn't there. We took Muller a few picks later and it doesn't look like we missed on anyone either in the 2nd round.
in 2017 We had Kyle Wright there. We were taking Wright. No doubt about that. We drafted Waters next in the 2nd round.
There was a focus on pitching that was stated, but we didn't pass up on any Kris Bryants or Carlos Correas in the process.
Edit- I see Bo Bichette went #66 and we took Kyle Muller #44 in 2016. That looks like something I'd like to do over again, but Muller was rated much higher at the time.
In 2015 you had some good bats Bregman, Benentindi, Rogers, Happ, Tucker, but they were all gone by #15 when we picked Allard except for Trent Clark. He's not even in the Brewers top 30. We then picked Soroka and then Riley in the comepetive balance round and Lucas Hebert after that in the 2nd. Maybe we could have picked Daz Cameron instead of Soroka, but I'm glad we didn't.
In 2016 you had Corey Ray who's sporting a .679 OPS right now and Kyle Lewis we could've drafted over Ian Anderson. Moniack and Senzel were gone. An argument can be made that Lewis is better than Anderson and nobody could say either way right now, more of a push. There were quesiton marks about Lewis (there was a reason he fell to #11) and Anderson had already agreed to go underslot. Taylor Tramell went 5 picks before Wentz in the CBA. I'd rather have Tramell than Wentz but he wasn't there. We took Muller a few picks later and it doesn't look like we missed on anyone either in the 2nd round.
in 2017 We had Kyle Wright there. We were taking Wright. No doubt about that. We drafted Waters next in the 2nd round.
There was a focus on pitching that was stated, but we didn't pass up on any Kris Bryants or Carlos Correas in the process.
Edit- I see Bo Bichette went #66 and we took Kyle Muller #44 in 2016. That looks like something I'd like to do over again, but Muller was rated much higher at the time.
The main issues:
1. Taking 3 arms in the 2016 draft.
2. Prioritizing pitching (none of which has panned out) as the return in every trade.
I don't see anyone complaining about Allard and Wright. Not when they were drafted, and not now.
bravesfanMatt
Steve Harvey'd
my biggest complaint.. and I didn't see it until the HO trade.. was really really trying to compete in 2017. Then they double down on that with Kemp.. But before that, they botched the Kimbrel trade and the J-up trade. Simmons could have netted more or just been kept.. (and I like Newk)... it was just dumb by the entire FO to think they could compete to open the new park.
Yes, the 2 underlying issues for the Braves during the rebuild have been overvaluing pitching and this absurd idea they could win in 2017.
All sub-optimal moves they made the last 3 years stem from those 2 fundamentally flawed thought processes.
They thought they could just mindlessly chant "Braves Way" over and over, and that somehow made them smarter than all the other teams who rebuilt correctly in ~5 years.
As a reslut, they didn't get top draft picks, they didn't maximize value of their MLB assets, and they don't have the payroll bottomed out now that they want to compete. And they didn't win **** in 2017. Pretty much a lose-lose-lose-lose outcome.
It will be interesting to see if teams like the Royals and Tigers learned anything from watching the Braves.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
I said I don't love you... you're growing on me a bit...