2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
The five at the top of my corner outfield trade list:

1. Pederson
2. Kepler
3. Winker
4. Verdugo
5. Peralta

I'm not listing them in order of value or preference, but more in order of likelihood the other team has interest in trading the player in question for one or our major league or near major league ready starting pitchers. I think the Dodgers will be more open to trading Pederson than Verdugo.

I still hold out some hope for Peralta, but it seems that the Dbacks are cool to the idea of trading him.

It is not accident all are lefties. I think AA will focus on a lefty. Which leaves out guys like Puig and Taylor.

Yeah I think that's about where I'd be as well. If I was ordering in preference, I'd probably go Verdugo, Peralta, Pederson, Kepler, Winker. But I think these are the five ideas that have at least a little steam. At least the ones that don't make me sick to my stomach.

The one guy that I still hold out some hope for is Gallo. I'd LOVE for the Rangers to start shopping him.
 
It’s been so quite in our front.

I bet it ends up being someone completely different.

These aren't names that have been thrown around a ton, with the exception of Pederson and Peralta. I do think the trade will surprise the more casual Braves fan, but the I'd bet that the guy we end up trading for (if we do make a trade) will end up being a guy previously discussed. If I had to put money down on it now, I'd bet on Pederson or Frazier. The other guys aren't far behind in likelihood, though.
 
I "could" be Bill Gates.

If you want to utilize Fried and Gohara as high-leverage pen pieces, I'm all for that - just do it. Fried has already lost two seasons to injury, and every pitch he throws gets him that much closer to the last one. Just stop wasting him away in Gwinnett. If you're keeping him strictly for depth, you're absolutely wasting him. Are they better than league-average Freeman you guys love so much? Then cut him loose and replace him with them. If they need to be stretched back out to help in the rotation, send them to Gwinnett for a couple weeks to do that when that time comes, otherwise use them to help the big league club win games before you can't trade them at all.

Goodness gracious... I can't believe your replies sometimes... did you really just use a comparison of the gap between you and Bill Gates and the gap between two top prospects who have already shown success at the MLB level and high quality relievers to help an argument? Is this real life?
 
[Tw]1076236471626014720[/tw]

Not so fast...

I think Passan's take is all wrong. They reset the luxury tax in 2018 so they could blow by it under the right circumstances this off-season. The trade with the Reds was about clearing some surplus players with significant contracts.
 
At this point, I have to believe that you don't understand either the SV model's methodology or purpose. Its so tough to reach that conclusion, because it has been explained ad nauseum on this board. Its unreal how much close mindedness it would take to see objective data that shows the SV model to be correct so often, and still believe that it gets it wrong "as often" as it gets it right.

I could probably do an extensive study using strict methodologies that prove the SV models to be within the margin of error 80+ percent of the time (I'm just using a random number, but its probably higher than that) and you would still disregard it because it doesn't fit whatever narrative you think makes sense.

I understand it just fine, and you haven't seen me disagree with it. I said all 3 Pitchers were too much to give up for Gray. I get the point that Camargo's more valuable than Frazier. I've said as much time and time again. The point is, if they're so *amn good, get them on the field before they get old or blow out.

My statement was that "if AA were to offer Camargo and one of those arms for Frazier and Gray, Cashman would have already sent the paperwork over". What about that statement is wrong???

Rake me over the coals all you like, you won't go back and find that I said I'd do it OR that it makes sense value-wise. You guys are in such a hurry to try to drag someone into an argument about how much sense the numbers make you only read what you're looking for. From the standpoint that the Braves apparently need a LF not named Camargo (since they say they're not going to play him there) and apparently want a SP not named Fried or Gohara (since it doesn't appear they're going to put either in the rotation), the fact that the Yankees would like to work something out given their lack of and our abundance of LHSPs makes plenty of sense.

They match up. That's it. How well depends on what ultimately got asked for and/or agreed to.
 
I understand it just fine, and you haven't seen me disagree with it. I said all 3 Pitchers were too much to give up for Gray. I get the point that Camargo's more valuable than Frazier. I've said as much time and time again. The point is, if they're so *amn good, get them on the field before they get old or blow out.

My statement was that "if AA were to offer Camargo and one of those arms for Frazier and Gray, Cashman would have already sent the paperwork over". What about that statement is wrong???

Rake me over the coals all you like, you won't go back and find that I said I'd do it OR that it makes sense value-wise. You guys are in such a hurry to try to drag someone into an argument about how much sense the numbers make you only read what you're looking for. From the standpoint that the Braves apparently need a LF not named Camargo (since they say they're not going to play him there) and apparently want a SP not named Fried or Gohara (since it doesn't appear they're going to put either in the rotation), the fact that the Yankees would like to work something out given their lack of and our abundance of LHSPs makes plenty of sense.

They match up. That's it. How well depends on what ultimately got asked for and/or agreed to.

Dude you literally said that the surplus value model is wrong as often as it is right. If that isn't trying to discredit the surplus value model, then I don't know what is. Its also not the first time you've derided it.
 
You must spend all your time listening to XM.

Wait a minute...are you Frenchy's mistress???

So let me get this straight... direct quotes are not direct if they are on XM? You had another problem with direct quotes a few weeks ago too... seemed like if the quote was reported in certain articles you refused to believe it and just attacked the source... I'm still not quite sure what you're trying to accomplish but then again, I don't think you're sure either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top