Kluber Paxton Greinke and Others

BeanieAntics said:
I'd personally much rather improve catcher than trade a boat load of prospects for a 33 year old pitcher. His contract isn't bad for his level of production, but 15-17 million dollars is still 15-17 million dollars. If we had a glaring need at starting pitcher I'd have no problem with swinging a deal for Kluber. But we really don't. We do have a need at catcher and corner outfield. We could go the cheap route and just resign Suzuki or something, but I'd rather have Grandal. Then swing a trade for Peralta or something.

I'd like a lineup with Grandal + Peralta FAR more than I'd like a lineup with Flowers/Suzuki plus somebody like Brantley. That would only be marginally better than last year's lineup, maybe no improvement at all if Flowers and Suzuki continue to regress.

Like I said, if we had a glaring need or if it were for a slam dunk type of player, then I'd consider doing it. But I'd never consider a 33 year old pitcher a slam dunk kind of acquisition, especially when you're talking about ~100 million in surplus value to acquire him.
Click to expand...

Carrasco, Bauer and Paxton look to be better fits for us in terms of risk-return.
 
BeanieAntics said:
I'd personally much rather improve catcher than trade a boat load of prospects for a 33 year old pitcher. His contract isn't bad for his level of production, but 15-17 million dollars is still 15-17 million dollars. If we had a glaring need at starting pitcher I'd have no problem with swinging a deal for Kluber. But we really don't. We do have a need at catcher and corner outfield. We could go the cheap route and just resign Suzuki or something, but I'd rather have Grandal. Then swing a trade for Peralta or something.

I'd like a lineup with Grandal + Peralta FAR more than I'd like a lineup with Flowers/Suzuki plus somebody like Brantley. That would only be marginally better than last year's lineup, maybe no improvement at all if Flowers and Suzuki continue to regress.

Like I said, if we had a glaring need or if it were for a slam dunk type of player, then I'd consider doing it. But I'd never consider a 33 year old pitcher a slam dunk kind of acquisition, especially when you're talking about ~100 million in surplus value to acquire him.
Click to expand...


I think the Braves rotation does not match up that great with the biggest contenders. I consider that to be a hole.

It might not be a particularly urgent hole to fill. And maybe the Braves should not worry so much about winning championships right now and just see what they have internally.

But I consider Kluber to be the perfect filler for a contender looking to acquire a TOR piece and I don't worry about him being 33. I consider the risk of him falling apart to be a lot less than the risk of prospects never amounting to much of anything.

Which doesn't mean I think they should give away the whole farm to get him. Cost is always the issue. But I think he's a good fit for a need and I don't find his contract to be that off-putting.
 
nsacpi said:
Actually Anibal's data on balls squared up was very good this year. He figured out something with the cutter last off-season. But if we can get one of the guys we are talking about in this tread for a reasonable price we should go for it. Anibal would be my fall-back plan if we didn't.
Click to expand...


There is no reason for the Braves to have Anibal and Teheran both in the rotation. Pick one.

I'd prefer Anibal, but depending on either one of them to repeat last season is foolish in my view.
 
Enscheff said:
One thing that’s clear about AA is he has those huge trades in his DNA. We’ve heard enough “frontline pitcher” chatter that it has to be considered a legit possibility.
Click to expand...
the other thing we saw with the Kemp trade last off-season is that he is opportunistic in looking for ways in which what another franchise is looking for aligns with what the Braves can provide...there has to be that intersection of interests to get to a win-win deal

sometimes that intersection of interests is a lot deeper than one team needing an outfielder and another team needing a catcher
 
Last edited:
Southcack77 said:
I think the Braves rotation does not match up that great with the biggest contenders. I consider that to be a hole.

It might not be a particularly urgent hole to fill. And maybe the Braves should not worry so much about winning championships right now and just see what they have internally.

But I consider Kluber to be the perfect filler for a contender looking to acquire a TOR piece and I don't worry about him being 33. I consider the risk of him falling apart to be a lot less than the risk of prospects never amounting to much of anything.

Which doesn't mean I think they should give away the whole farm to get him. Cost is always the issue. But I think he's a good fit for a need and I don't find his contract to be that off-putting.
Click to expand...

Huh. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what we consider a "hole"... I wouldn't consider bringing back a plethora of young SP options that contributed to a top 5 ERA a hole. I understand the perception that we don't have an "ace" type of guy, but this rotation is really good overall and it should get better next year. I think the odds of Kluber keeping up what he is doing is better than the odds of a single prospect/young pitcher being good or great. But when you start talking about multiple prospects, I'm not so sure. Touki, Soroka, Wright, Wilson, Gohara, Newcomb, Allard and after them Anderson, Wentz, Muller, etc... If you picked one of those guys out of a hat, then yeah the odds aren't that good. But out of all those guys? I'm betting that we'll get enough to fill out a really good rotation with Gausman and Folty locked in to two spots.

I think a lot of this comes down to overall team perception. If I thought we could spend our way to a 25%+ chance of winning a WS next year, then maybe Kluber makes some sense. I don't think we can though. I think this team, with some responsible additions, is probably good enough to win 90-95 games next year and just be a normal playoff team with a ~10% chance at winning it all. If we get to the point where we look WS ready mid-season, fine... make a deal for Kluber or someone along those lines. But not until we know that our team is ready.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Huh. I guess we just fundamentally disagree on what we consider a "hole"... I wouldn't consider bringing back a plethora of young SP options that contributed to a top 5 ERA a hole. I understand the perception that we don't have an "ace" type of guy, but this rotation is really good overall and it should get better next year. I think the odds of Kluber keeping up what he is doing is better than the odds of a single prospect/young pitcher being good or great. But when you start talking about multiple prospects, I'm not so sure. Touki, Soroka, Wright, Wilson, Gohara, Newcomb, Allard and after them Anderson, Wentz, Muller, etc... If you picked one of those guys out of a hat, then yeah the odds aren't that good. But out of all those guys? I'm betting that we'll get enough to fill out a really good rotation with Gausman and Folty locked in to two spots.

I think a lot of this comes down to overall team perception. If I thought we could spend our way to a 25%+ chance of winning a WS next year, then maybe Kluber makes some sense. I don't think we can though. I think this team, with some responsible additions, is probably good enough to win 90-95 games next year and just be a normal playoff team with a ~10% chance at winning it all. If we get to the point where we look WS ready mid-season, fine... make a deal for Kluber or someone along those lines. But not until we know that our team is ready.
Click to expand...

I think it is more likely that Kluber is a Cy Young winner in any of the next three years than it is that any of the top three pitching prospects in the system, your choice, ever win one.
 
The Dodgers philosophy appears to be managing the workloads of brittle pitchers during the marathon of the regular season to make sure they have difference makers ready for the sprint of the post season. That allows them to avoid paying the premium for pitcher durability.

If AA follows that methodology, Paxton seems like the most likely target. He’s a real difference maker that doesn’t carry the “workhorse” premium.
 
Southcack77 said:
I agree with this too.

Just saying, I'm not really buying the Kluber is too old to bet on.
Click to expand...

He might be different than your average pitcher and pitch effectively well into his late 30s. But given starting pitcher aging curves, I'd only be willing to bet on it at a reasonable price point. 100 million in surplus value and 17 million in $$$ is not what I would call a bargain rate.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-starters-and-relievers/

Notice how velo starts to fall apart right around Kluber's age and how everything else starts to go with it. If you don't see that as a considerable risk then I don't know what to tell you.
 
BeanieAntics said:
He might be different than your average pitcher and pitch effectively well into his late 30s. But given starting pitcher aging curves, I'd only be willing to bet on it at a reasonable price point. 100 million in surplus value and 17 million in $$$ is not what I would call a bargain rate.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/pitcher-aging-curves-starters-and-relievers/

Notice how velo starts to fall apart right around Kluber's age and how everything else starts to go with it. If you don't see that as a considerable risk then I don't know what to tell you.
Click to expand...

Kluber generally has lived off his cutter, sinker and slider, and significantly moved away from use of his four seamer last season, which has never been his most effective pitch. I don't see any major signs of decline in the effectiveness of those pitchers (well maybe the change), which tend to age better than fastball dependent on raw velocity.

injury and decline risk inevitably increases with age, but I wouldn't be especially worried about Kluber switching to the weaker offensive league and under-performing.

I'm more interested in who they would have to give up than their theoretical value. Kluber has that surplus value because he's expected to be very good. I don't mind trading in future value for present value where it is warranted and makes sense.

It might not make sense for Atlanta right now and you certainly would not want to acquire Kluber if you didn't do other things to maximize your chances of winning a title.

It might not be the right time to do any of this. Maybe championships are not what Atlanta needs to be worrying about. But when you put Kluber in front of Folty and Gausman all of a sudden your rotation starts to look about right for a series matchup.
 
Southcack77 said:
Kluber generally has lived off his cutter, sinker and slider, and significantly moved away from use of his four seamer last season, which has never been his most effective pitch. I don't see any major signs of decline in the effectiveness of those pitchers (well maybe the change), which tend to age better than fastball dependent on raw velocity.

injury and decline risk inevitably increases with age, but I wouldn't be especially worried about Kluber switching to the weaker offensive league and under-performing.

I'm more interested in who they would have to give up than their theoretical value. Kluber has that surplus value because he's expected to be very good. I don't mind trading in future value for present value where it is warranted and makes sense.

It might not make sense for Atlanta right now and you certainly would not want to acquire Kluber if you didn't do other things to maximize your chances of winning a title.

It might not be the right time to do any of this. Maybe championships are not what Atlanta needs to be worrying about. But when you put Kluber in front of Folty and Gausman all of a sudden your rotation starts to look about right for a series matchup.
Click to expand...

My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.
 
BeanieAntics said:
My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.
Click to expand...

In the opening post the underlying assumption for Kluber was 5.5, 4.5 and 4.0 in the next three seasons. And as I noted I was a tad generous to incorporate the value of having those two options.
 
BeanieAntics said:
My main problem with a Kluber trade is that I don't think his projections, and by extension his value, is properly assessing the age risk associated with him. If the projections had him at something like 4, 3.5, 3 wins over the next three years, then maybe I'd be more inclined to do a deal. But assuming that his mean or median outcome the next three years will be 5 wins or something and making a trade using that valuation isn't properly factoring in that risk.

Its very possible that Kluber is a unicorn and that the risk won't manifest itself and he is a 5-7 win pitcher for the next three years. But I'm not going to make a trade based on that assumption.

I also don't know what you mean by major signs of decline in "those" pitchers. Do you mean the pitchers represented in the graphs or sinker/cutter/slider type pitchers? If its the former, I'd go back and look at the graphs. If it is the latter, that could be true. I've never looked in to it. But I'd want to see some data before I were willing to accept your word on that.
Click to expand...


Pretty certain that all of the projection systems have some element of forecasting decline.

For "those pitchers" read "those pitches". Typo.

I'm not arguing that age doesn't imply decline. I'm arguing against the implied assertion that Kluber has to be a "unicorn" to continue being a Cy Young caliber pitcher at 33, 34, or 35.

Nonetheless, I would not make the trade on the assumption he will be a 5+ Win pitcher in each of those years.
 
Kluber would be a luxury imo. Right now we have a full rotation until some are traded. Fried and Touki deserve their shot to see what they have. If we can get a legit COF and fix catcher then we can work on the rotation but it’s not a priority imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top