AA piece on ESPN

[cajunrevenge]

I dont expect any big moves this trade deadline. We are entering a large window where we will be playoff contenders going into every year for a while. I think the front office should/could say they are confident in our young players and they are going to let the chips fall where they may. A trade this year could lead to shortages in the coming years that we make more trades to fill. The only thing that really tempts me is Machado because he is an elite hitter and defender at our biggest position of weakness and he is highly motivates with his upcoming contract and entering his prime. If we cant sign players of this caliber it just tempts me to strike while we have the chance. If the price is right I would do it.

 

[TheBravos]

If we “did” trade for Machado and then loose him in free agency....would we receive a compensation pick? That would be a late first rounder right? So it wouldn’t be a total loss?

 

[thewupk]

If we “did” trade for Machado and then loose him in free agency....would we receive a compensation pick? That would be a late first rounder right? So it wouldn’t be a total loss?

No. It used to be that way but it changed a couple years back to where a player has to be on your team the entire year to be given a qualifying offer.

 

[Southcack77]

If we “did” trade for Machado and then loose him in free agency....would we receive a compensation pick? That would be a late first rounder right? So it wouldn’t be a total loss?

No, this was a mistake I made as well. You only can get a compensation pick for a player that began the season on your roster (to whom you have made a qualifying offer).

 

[clvclv]

A prospect at the backend of the top 100 is probably fair as the centerpiece for a Machado rental.

Not disputing that - just a higher price than I really want to pay unless AA receives assurances from Machado that he's willing to let everything play out and that we'll be on an equal footing with the big markets when it comes to bidding for him this winter

I realize many are skeptical about "hometown discounts", but in this situation it wouldn't need to be a monetary discount as much as a liking the situation better than others. Obviously he'd make a huge difference, would have another superstar alongside of him to lessen the pressure a little, tons of young talent around him (particularly pitching), and at the end of the day he's a Florida kid. I do think that spending a couple months with Freddie, Ozzie, Acuna, and Dansby could help make him more comfortable about returning - but I'm not willing to gamble a whole lot that it could make the ultimate difference.

If he's willing to look AA in the eyes and say we'd have the same chance of signing him as anyone else this winter (and AA believes him), I'd be OK with giving them Allard - but it'd still make me a little queasy - probably worth the gamble in our situation.

 

[TheBravos]

No. It used to be that way but it changed a couple years back to where a player has to be on your team the entire year to be given a qualifying offer.

Ok, that’s just another way I hate the MLB system. If you have that player...that means you gave up substantial assets to acquire him. So you make the trade and you loose a $300 million dollar player, and NOONE is compensated?? Please don’t tell me the Orioles still get it?? That’s so dumb it makes my head hurt thinking about it. BUT...let’s make sure and give teams like the Cardinals a extra pick just because of revenue EVERY friggin year. No wonder they are usually a good team.

 

[Southcack77]

Ok, that’s just another way I hate the MLB system. If you have that player...that means you gave up substantial assets to acquire him. So you make the trade and you loose a $300 million dollar player, and NOONE is compensated?? Please don’t tell me the Orioles still get it?? That’s so dumb it makes my head hurt thinking about it. BUT...let’s make sure and give teams like the Cardinals a extra pick just because of revenue EVERY friggin year. No wonder they are usually a good team.

Orioles won't be able to make him a QO if they trade him.

 

[thewupk]

Ok, that’s just another way I hate the MLB system. If you have that player...that means you gave up substantial assets to acquire him. So you make the trade and you loose a $300 million dollar player, and NOONE is compensated?? Please don’t tell me the Orioles still get it?? That’s so dumb it makes my head hurt thinking about it. BUT...let’s make sure and give teams like the Cardinals a extra pick just because of revenue EVERY friggin year. No wonder they are usually a good team.

I understand that point of view. But to be fair this change has also caused the price of deadline rentals to go down imo. Teams know they won't get anything in return for the player walking so they are less inclined to give up much to get said player.

 

[sturg33]

I understand that point of view. But to be fair this change has also caused the price of deadline rentals to go down imo. Teams know they won't get anything in return for the player walking so they are less inclined to give up much to get said player.

Yeah and also sets a floor for the return on the asset.

Ensures the team has to give up more value than the compensation pick

 

[Russ2dollas]

I understand that point of view. But to be fair this change has also caused the price of deadline rentals to go down imo. Teams know they won't get anything in return for the player walking so they are less inclined to give up much to get said player.

Machado's price has to be double or more what the orioles would expect from a comp pick.

There are so many other rental options out there.

I just want us to not send out good players b/c we have too many of them. IMO we are fringe guys now. I think we need to save up and make some big moves to become legit contenders. I think the big moves come in the offseason not at the deadline.

If you want to give up not much for a guy like Yates from the Pads then I'm in. That guy makes us better and shouldn't cost a legit piece. A guy like hand costs a lot more.

 

[clvclv]

I understand that point of view. But to be fair this change has also caused the price of deadline rentals to go down imo. Teams know they won't get anything in return for the player walking so they are less inclined to give up much to get said player.

Really amazes me that the Union has allowed this structure to remain in place - one could argue that this (and sturg's point about the artificial floor) does as much to limit in-season player movement as anything out there.

I realize that the rule (in theory) is intended to protect franchises against idiotic owners and GMs who are willing to constantly roll the dice when they're not really contenders, but that's pretty *hitty IMO. If an owner approves a trade agreed to by his front office (typically because he feels it improves their chance of winning immediately or to a lesser extent will increase attendance) and that trade backfires, too bad. It's his team and he's paid through the nose for the right to run it as he sees fit.

Legislating player movement is as nuts as legislating the number of shifts a team can make. If a particular owner gets burned enough times he'll -

1.) Hire smarter people in the front office
2.) Do things likely to make fans happy in the short term

or

3.) Lose so much money that he's forced to adapt or sell.


In the end (begrudgingly sounding like Joe, Chip, and others), limiting that player movement actually IS bad for the game from a fan's perspective since you have so many teams tanking and uninterested in winning that there's almost no chance you'll ever see many Cinderellas who have everything go right one season and go out and get that difference-maker at the deadline to try to push themselves over the top.

 

[thewupk]

Yeah and also sets a floor for the return on the asset.

Ensures the team has to give up more value than the compensation pick

Yeah. The two usually go hand in hand. If a player is good enough to warrant the QO then their value the rest of the value is usually going to be worth the value of the comp pick. But you are right that it does set a floor that the holding team can argue against.

Machado's price has to be double or more what the orioles would expect from a comp pick.

There are so many other rental options out there.

I just want us to not send out good players b/c we have too many of them. IMO we are fringe guys now. I think we need to save up and make some big moves to become legit contenders. I think the big moves come in the offseason not at the deadline.

If you want to give up not much for a guy like Yates from the Pads then I'm in. That guy makes us better and shouldn't cost a legit piece. A guy like hand costs a lot more.

In the end it does come down to value. There are a few players at the back end of the recent Fangraphs top 100 that I would include as the centerpiece of a Machado deal with then some filler added to it. I think the Braves can afford to take that hit. Multiple top guys? No I wouldn't want to do that. But I also think we need to look at this from the point of view that nothing is ever guaranteed. The Braves are winning now and even with the way the organization is setup there is still no grantee of winning in the future. If the Braves can add Machado for the stretch run at a fair price then I think we should jump on it.

 

[Heyward]

Just bc you have a lot of money doesn’t mean you should waste it.

Relief pitchers are the worst assets

We have guys in the minors who can help for free.

I’d rather keep those guys and use them for long term answer in the of or catcher

Proven guys > young guys. Braves have a ton of money to spend, using "some" of it on a RP would be fine.

 

[Nerfherders]

What if Machado nets you a World Series ring in 2018, and then he goes? Is all forgiven?

One has to weigh the x% amount more of a chance to win it all NOW vs. what is given up in value. In other words, you don't make the trade to simply make the playoffs.

 

[Orphan Black]

One has to weigh the x% amount more of a chance to win it all NOW vs. what is given up in value. In other words, you don't make the trade to simply make the playoffs.

This is obviously the smart thing, but man I just wanna see Machado in this lineup.

 

[sturg33]

If Folty and Newcomb keep this performance up, I think Machado makes us a legitimate contender to win.

 

[clvclv]

If Folty and Newcomb keep this performance up, I think Machado makes us a legitimate contender to win.

I would hope so as well, but I'm still a little skeptical - and that's coming from one of the biggest pozzies on the board.

That's what worries me.

 

[zbhargrove]

I would hope so as well, but I'm still a little skeptical - and that's coming from one of the biggest pozzies on the board.

That's what worries me.

Sorry but If you'd be hesitant to trade a bottom top 100 guy for Machado, you're an idiot.

 

[nsacpi]

What if Machado nets you a World Series ring in 2018, and then he goes? Is all forgiven?

One has to weigh the x% amount more of a chance to win it all NOW vs. what is given up in value. In other words, you don't make the trade to simply make the playoffs.

decisions have to be evaluated on an ex ante basis...nothing is guaranteed

 

[zitothebrave]

To me, Machado certainly makes us better. You're taking a 1.5-2 WAR player in Camargo and getting a typical 5-6 WAR player. But I don't like it still. I would much rather look at where we're struggling. and that's the rotation. Folty and Newcomb look great, Soroka looks good. McCarthy is OK. Julio is massively outpitching his peripherals and should be traded off.

I think we should look at the pitching market instead. Try and see what prospects it would take to get Hamels and some cash. I don't know what the best choice is out there, but I'd rather focus on pitching. Offense we'll be fine in, it's the pitching that worries me.