nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
Are you valuing Riley and Anderson as FV 55 players?
Realmuto projects to about 8 WAR over the next two years and about 6 wins of expected surplus value.
2018 Offseason And Targets
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
- Status
Are you valuing Riley and Anderson as FV 55 players?
Realmuto projects to about 8 WAR over the next two years and about 6 wins of expected surplus value.
We'd be getting back another major league piece if that's the case. Presumably a RP. A contract swap of Castro and Julio might also make some sense for us as well to deepen the bench.
Hudson2
Well-known member
I’ve been a huge Riley fan since we drafted him and I like Anderson a lot too but I would do that deal and make Flowers the 3rd piece. AA hasn’t addressed COF at all so I’m guessing he’s waiting on the JTR shoe to drop first. Encheff is probably on to something when he thinks a JTR deal and COF deal could both happen really close to each other.
*If they are both 55s they represent about $80M in surplus value, and I have JTR worth around $60M. That’s why I wrote “especially if Anderson’s low spin rate has him as a guy the Braves aren’t high on”. If Anderson is more of a 50, then the values line up within the error bars...especially if the Braves think they can improve JTR’s framing and/or a decent BP arm is also coming over.
Hudson2
Well-known member
You would think the time is getting very close....you would think ����*.
I bet he’s traded before middle of next week.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
Reading through the posts, I think I might be somewhat misunderstood in my thoughts on rebuilding.
I look at a rebuild as a holistic process, one you should only do with an eye to turning a franchise around in direction with an intention of keeping it there. That means it has to be done in terms of talent, timing and money.
Talent- you need a LOT of it to come out of a rebuild. It's good to go into a rebuild with talent that you can turn into a greater pool of talent opportunity but it's not absolutely necessary. Having ML assets available to trade off can theoretically shorten a rebuild depending on your ability to maximize the ultimate talent return that you get back. When you enter a rebuild it allows you to drop your payroll significantly. Now, you are going to see a drop in revenues but you should wisely spend what you have to build talent that will be helpful in starting and maintaining your winning. Talent is a bit stand alone since it doesn't matter how you get it, just get it.
Timing and Money are related. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers can afford to "reload," shorten a rebuild, because they have the money to fill holes in FA and not starve the fire once they have it started. Teams like the Pirates, Royals, Reds, Rays, A's etc. will always be building to a short peak (regardless of where that peak leads) only to quickly fall off into another rebuild. It doesn't really matter if it results in the violent swing of peaks and valleys experienced by the Royals or the sustained mediocrity of the Rays. They never have the funds to feed the fire to keep the rebuild going just when it is needed most. Then you have teams like Houston (or the late 90's Braves) that start out gathering a horde of talent. When that talent reaches a level of critical mass they then infuse money as needed to keep the fire going.
The time to feed the fire changes on the level of talent reaching the majors and the commitment to winning at any given time.
My thinking, when I first suggested stripping the team to the paint and trading Teheran and Freeman when they were trading everyone else was that unless a serious commitment to increasing payroll was planned then the team would not be able to sustain long term success beyond the end of those two's contract because holes could not be filled by cash and instead would need to be filled through trade of young assets, assets needed to keep the fire going. It's a hard concept for fans to accept because fans by nature don't want to watch a horrible team and having a good player like Freeman or a theoretically good pitcher like Teheran to watch during a rebuild would make the process at least a little more bearable.
If the Braves were indeed committed to moving the payroll into the top ten range, then keeping Freeman probably would have been the right move. Since it's not looking that way, I still say it was and is a mistake. But they are committed to it now, no turning back. IMO, even IF they increase payroll into the top ten range as the payroll debt slowly erodes away, it comes as the current young assets like Albies and Acuna get more expensive and the horde of young talent fades away through trade and lack of ability to replace.
The Braves are looking at an extended period of 3-4 years of various levels of mediocrity followed by a decline and eventual repeat of a rebuild. If they make the same mistake then, given the same parameters, they will be firmly on the Pirates/Royals?rays roller coaster.
I look at a rebuild as a holistic process, one you should only do with an eye to turning a franchise around in direction with an intention of keeping it there. That means it has to be done in terms of talent, timing and money.
Talent- you need a LOT of it to come out of a rebuild. It's good to go into a rebuild with talent that you can turn into a greater pool of talent opportunity but it's not absolutely necessary. Having ML assets available to trade off can theoretically shorten a rebuild depending on your ability to maximize the ultimate talent return that you get back. When you enter a rebuild it allows you to drop your payroll significantly. Now, you are going to see a drop in revenues but you should wisely spend what you have to build talent that will be helpful in starting and maintaining your winning. Talent is a bit stand alone since it doesn't matter how you get it, just get it.
Timing and Money are related. Teams like the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers can afford to "reload," shorten a rebuild, because they have the money to fill holes in FA and not starve the fire once they have it started. Teams like the Pirates, Royals, Reds, Rays, A's etc. will always be building to a short peak (regardless of where that peak leads) only to quickly fall off into another rebuild. It doesn't really matter if it results in the violent swing of peaks and valleys experienced by the Royals or the sustained mediocrity of the Rays. They never have the funds to feed the fire to keep the rebuild going just when it is needed most. Then you have teams like Houston (or the late 90's Braves) that start out gathering a horde of talent. When that talent reaches a level of critical mass they then infuse money as needed to keep the fire going.
The time to feed the fire changes on the level of talent reaching the majors and the commitment to winning at any given time.
My thinking, when I first suggested stripping the team to the paint and trading Teheran and Freeman when they were trading everyone else was that unless a serious commitment to increasing payroll was planned then the team would not be able to sustain long term success beyond the end of those two's contract because holes could not be filled by cash and instead would need to be filled through trade of young assets, assets needed to keep the fire going. It's a hard concept for fans to accept because fans by nature don't want to watch a horrible team and having a good player like Freeman or a theoretically good pitcher like Teheran to watch during a rebuild would make the process at least a little more bearable.
If the Braves were indeed committed to moving the payroll into the top ten range, then keeping Freeman probably would have been the right move. Since it's not looking that way, I still say it was and is a mistake. But they are committed to it now, no turning back. IMO, even IF they increase payroll into the top ten range as the payroll debt slowly erodes away, it comes as the current young assets like Albies and Acuna get more expensive and the horde of young talent fades away through trade and lack of ability to replace.
The Braves are looking at an extended period of 3-4 years of various levels of mediocrity followed by a decline and eventual repeat of a rebuild. If they make the same mistake then, given the same parameters, they will be firmly on the Pirates/Royals?rays roller coaster.
This deal is going down. Brian Bridges likely cried about Anderson being in the deal and got the boot.
bravesfanforlife88
Well-known member
report came out about his spin rate on his FB and off speed....was very low...
Ah , ok I missed that. The thing is....we have plenty of other pitchers , but Riley is our only 3rd base prospect. If Donaldson has a great year...we likely can’t afford to sign him back.
I like Camargo, but I think he is finally where he fits perfectly. I would rather not have him at 3rd everyday.
There are several excellent 3B hitting FA next year, all but JD requiring 9 figure deals, but none requiring a deal like Machado’s. Signing JD for 1 year, moving Camargo to the bench, and the willingness to trade Riley suggests the Braves intend to be right in the middle of the bidding for those FA 3B.
Last edited:
Honestly, for me, he's always been a good step behind Soroka and given Touki's ascension, I'd put him behind him as well. I have Anderson and Wright rated about the same.
Yeah, I always saw Wright as a guy we could trade. Maybe that’s another reason AA made the change. That’s two top five picks right there.
Honestly, I like Wilson better than Wright also, because he’s a bulldog.
Who are the 3B free agents next year?
That makes sense I guess if the Braves don’t think that highly of Riley, but everything I’ve heard says they are big on him. Could just be fluff I guess.
Completely depends on how much you believe in Pache's bat - there have been plenty of others who have questioned it, including some here.
I'm not campaigning to move him by any stretch, but given the fact that we control Ender and Waters is coming behind him I would if it got you someone that fits as well as Peralta. AA was told "no" based on what he offered earlier, and I'm sure he wouldn't have included Pache in that offer so early on. Under any other circumstances I wouldn't trade him either, but doing so wouldn't hurt nearly as much or shorten the window since you'd still have Waters.
Here’s the relevant info:
Logan: Seems like Ian Anderson’s spin rates are super low on the board. Is a 91-94 FB with a spin rate of 2175 RPM really above average? Or a curveball at 1700 RPM? I know the write up acknowledged he wasn’t a spin rate maven, but wow those are low.
12:34
Kiley McDaniel: Yes, they are. His feel for pitching will be key going forward
For reference, Wright and Soroka have spin rates over 2400 on the FA, which will likely lead to much more movement on the pitch.
Anderson doesn’t have a horrid spin rate like Fried, but it’s not great. Pitchers like Gausman succeed with a similar FA spin rate, so it is certainly possible he carves out a nice career.
The 1700 spin rate on the breaking ball is a little more concerningif it’s accurate. That’s terrible and likely means very little movement on the pitch. Wright and Soroka have spin rates ~1000 rpm more than Anderson
If another team values Anderson as “the next Mussina”, it might be a good time to sell high on him though.
Last edited:
- Status