2018 Offseason And Targets

Status
Not open for further replies.
smoltzie29 said:
Sabathia worked out pretty well.

Kershaw.

But not a ton. Partly because there aren't a ton of true studs out there. But it's rarely a good to bet to make.

I think teams make those acquisitions knowing it will be a burden at the end but hopefully a bargain at the beginning.
Click to expand...

Yes, they’re trying to win.

And pretty much every single World Series participant has a deal or trade for high end pitcher in their transactions.

And there are plenty of examples of trans that did it and benefitted.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yes, they’re trying to win.

And pretty much every single World Series participant has a deal or trade for high end pitcher in their transactions.

And there are plenty of examples of trans that did it and benefitted.
Click to expand...

Gausman and hopefully Anibal
 
Hudson2 said:
If I could have my way with what we have available I’d:

Trade Wright, Wentz, and Waters for Realmuto
Resign Sanchez for 1/10
Trade Newcomb for Peralta
Sign Herrera for 1/8
Sign Donaldson for 1/20
Sign Duda for 1/5
Trade Teheran for any salary relief

That hits all of our needs and adds around 50 million and makes Camargo the super sub.

Acuna
Realmuto
Freeman
Donaldson
Peralta
Albies
Ender
Swanson

Folty
Gausman
Soroka
Sanchez
Touki

Camargo
Duda
Flowers
Culberson
Duval

Herrera
Viz
Minter
Biddle
O‘Day
Fried
Venters
Click to expand...

I don't think Donaldson will get $20 MM for one year and if he does, I hope it's not us that gives it to him.
 
Enscheff said:
Agreed with Scherzer. The only example in recent history where a huge expenditure on a TOR starter looks like it’s going to work out.

1 good, 20 bad.

But yes, let’s all assume acquiring a TOR starter will work out for the Braves
Click to expand...

Another recent example is when the Dodgers signed Greinke to a 6 year deal in 2013. He pitched very well in his 3 years with the Dodgers but opted out after 3 years.
 
Freshmaker said:
It cost Houston their #3, #9 and #11 prospects though. I don't know if that is considered "massive," but neither is it what you trade for a salary dump.

Trading for a TOR is very risky, sure. You're gambling that they 1) stay healthy and 2) stay good. But at least you know that they have been good in the past. You're taking the same risk with prospects, only that they might not be good, and they might not be good enough for your window. Freeman is 29, so we've likely only got a couple more years before he starts declining. Acuna and Albies should get better, granted, but I think it makes some sense to use some of our capital to seriously compete soon rather than waiting 2 - 4 more years to see if we drafted a TOR
Click to expand...

You're taking the same risk, but you are investing nothing. The only risk is that they fail. If you trade or sign for a ToR starter you are investing massive amounts of money and/or prospect capital. If you do that, and they fail, it can single handedly dismantle an entire rebuild or competitive window. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pirates look back on last year as the moment where they gave away any chance at being competitive for Archer.
 
clvclv said:
"If there’s a deal that makes sense for us, and it’s a good asset to have, we’ll do it,” Anthopoulos said. “I think the one where you scratch and really push, and you want to call it overpay in years or dollars, you feel like that’s the one final piece. Everything else is in place. That could be a trade in July. You step up a little bit."

"So I do think, especially with our payroll and so on, we have to make smart deals."

"The Braves made bigger name prospects available at the deadline, the GM confirmed, which indicates a willingness to move pitching for immediate help."

"There’s the big what-if in Madison Bumgarner. The Giants have resisted rebuilding, and like the Mets are bringing in a new GM. He’ll have his $12 million club option exercised and hit free agency as a 30-year-old in 2020. If San Francisco puts him out there, the Braves would explore it. He’s a proven postseason pitcher. There’s belief that if he were to change jerseys, the Braves are a preferred destination. A North Carolina native, an extension seems palatable, though you risk paying for his decline."

"“We’ll come up with our own internal values on guys,” Anthopoulos said. “If that value is there early, we’ll jump."

https://www.ajc.com/sports/baseball/braves-need-trade-for-ace/nKc4i87xVEnwuO0CE1uOqI/


None of that screams "we're looking for an Ace", but there's enough there to connect the dots that if an affordable one becomes available, he's paying attention if it doesn't gut the system. Kluber/Carrasco/Paxton all make less than $14 million and are under control for multiple years, so they at least fit the criteria he's describing. deGrom and Syndergaard obviously do too, but I find it awfully hard to imagine a scenario where the Mutts wouldn't require an unbelievably massive overpay to send either of them to us.


"Of course, moving players who are at or near the MLB level generally means giving up the ability to fill roster spots productively at bargain rates. Acquiring proven, high-level major-leaguers who are still playing for peanuts is next to impossible, even for an organization with a talent pool as deep as Atlanta’s. More likely, the club will be most successful at pursuing players who have at least reached arbitration or who are playing on attractive guaranteed contracts — players, that is, who are worth more than they are being paid, but aren’t still at or near the league-minimum."

"Perhaps it’s also possible that they’ll end up re-uniting with Markakis and Suzuki while otherwise only picking at the edges of the roster, though certainly that does not sound like the hoped-for or expected outcome."

"With a rather ambitious scope in mind entering the winter, it’s possible to imagine the club at least considering upgrades at all but a few positions on the roster. And if there’s a real desire for impactful roster additions, without the appetite for paying premium free agent price tags, then it’s possible we’ll see a creative, free-wheeling, multi-faceted winter of action in Atlanta."

https://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2018/10/anthopoulos-discusses-braves-offseason.html
Click to expand...

The Mets would have to be out of their minds to let the whole "trading within the division" trope prevent them from accepting the best deal on the table. That mindset is super outdated and it doesn't hurt anyone except the team that is moving the player. I know I would be pissed if I found out we were shopping a player and took a lesser deal in order to avoid sending him to the Nats or Phillies.
 
zbhargrove said:
Sale was a clear win considering he was a key piece of a championship team
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Sale doesn't yet fit within the confines of his conditional. He said someone who had been successful for the duration of his contract. That may end up being the case for Sale, but not yet.

And it my opinion that is something to consider. If we made some crazy trade for a big money pitcher on a years long contract, I'd want to gauge both the short and long term prospects of such a deal. I'm pretty risk averse when it comes to "buy" type trades. If we traded for a ToR arm on a 5 year deal, won a WS with him next year, and then he was awful for the next 4 and it ended up costing us our competitive window... I'm not sure I would consider that a good deal. I know a lot of people would seemingly be happy with one WS and then being terrible for years and years (kinda like the Royals currently). But I think we've built something that has a chance of lasting for 6 or 7 years minimum and I don't want to mortgage that for an aging pitcher.
 
BeanieAntics said:
Yeah, but Sale doesn't yet fit within the confines of his conditional. He said someone who had been successful for the duration of his contract. That may end up being the case for Sale, but not yet.

And it my opinion that is something to consider. If we made some crazy trade for a big money pitcher on a years long contract, I'd want to gauge both the short and long term prospects of such a deal. I'm pretty risk averse when it comes to "buy" type trades. If we traded for a ToR arm on a 5 year deal, won a WS with him next year, and then he was awful for the next 4 and it ended up costing us our competitive window... I'm not sure I would consider that a good deal. I know a lot of people would seemingly be happy with one WS and then being terrible for years and years (kinda like the Royals currently). But I think we've built something that has a chance of lasting for 6 or 7 years minimum and I don't want to mortgage that for an aging pitcher.
Click to expand...

Yup I clearly said the jury is still out on Sale regarding the "duration of the contract" part
 
nsacpi said:
this offseason is most likely going to be about creating a deep roster, not about acquiring stars

I'll be surprised if we acquire a TOR
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think we could land one big player via FA or a trade but we will probably see several solid players brought in to improve our depth.
 
BeanieAntics said:
The Mets would have to be out of their minds to let the whole "trading within the division" trope prevent them from accepting the best deal on the table. That mindset is super outdated and it doesn't hurt anyone except the team that is moving the player. I know I would be pissed if I found out we were shopping a player and took a lesser deal in order to avoid sending him to the Nats or Phillies.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But they're still the Mets, and just hired a GM based on the fact that he was serving as those two Aces' agent in the hopes that that would convince them to sign for less.
 
I say let's get creative with a Harper contract $450M contract structured as: $30M, $30M, $30M, $30M, $30M/player option, then $3 per year every year for the next 100M years! largest contract in MLB history in terms of both dollars AND years! Win/Win:Gasp:
 
Per MLbtraderumors

The Braves have been mentioned as speculative suitors for Harper and Machado, and Atlanta even had some interest in Machado at the trade deadline. A pursuit of either player this winter, however, might not be in the cards, as per GM Alex Anthopoulos’ comments in an interview with Jim Bowden and Jim Duquette of MLB Network Radio on Siriux XM (audio link). “We can be in on any player, we certainly have the dollars to do that. I don’t know that it makes a lot of sense….to do deals that are ten years in length and longer at significant dollars with the payroll that we have,” Anthopoulos said. “It’s not a rule for us, but I tend to not see a ton of value from our club that that would make sense for us….That doesn’t mean we won’t at least explore some things and see if we could line up on the right deal and the right term, but I am reluctant to go extremely long in terms of length.” Freddie Freeman‘s eight-year, $135MM deal (signed in February 2014, long before Anthopoulos was with the franchise) is the biggest contract in Braves history, though that extension was signed while Freeman was still 24 and in his first arbitration-eligible year.
 
MLB put out their blurb about FA matches. Thought Evoldi would match well with us. I would be cool with him if we don’t have to go too high on him or at least not too high with 4plus years. He scares me as much as he excites me.
 
Southcack77 said:
He has one more year at 15m on his deal. He usually puts up 6-8 WAR and he’d be a value at 2 WAR.

And they’ve already won a championship.
Click to expand...

Yeah I would put Sale and Max in this category. Kershaw on the other hand looks to be going south. He performed well the first 2 years when he hit the 30 million per year figure. 4.6 war in 17 and 3.5 in 18. 3 more years at 30+ now. He will also be 31 next year.

Fact remains that in most of these deals. Especially when paying for it in FA or huge extensions it doesn't end well for the teams. But that's usually understood or should be when going into these deals.

I'd be more apt to do what the Sox did with sale and trade prospects on an ace with a few cheap years left if your going to get one. FA deals are the worst.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
MLB put out their blurb about FA matches. Thought Evoldi would match well with us. I would be cool with him if we don’t have to go too high on him or at least not too high with 4plus years. He scares me as much as he excites me.
Click to expand...

Have absolutely no interest in Eovaldi personally. He's going to turn a nice playoff run into a good contract like Brandon Morrow did last year (and good for both of them BTW), I just hope AA continues to stay away from guys like that. Neither has ever been able to stay healthy even though they have talent worth dreaming on.

If you spend your limited free-agent dollars chasing a star, I can live with that choice. Eovaldi is nowhere close to that TOR arm you can count on, and he's going to cost a lot more than guys like Kluber, Carrasco, and Paxton who you have to feel are a lot more capable of filling that role. Sure those guys will cost you prospects, but there simply isn't room for all the arms we have that are ready or close to ready.

If you're going to add a SP, trade some of those prospects for a better SP (rather than a #3/#4 - yeah, I'm not sure Eovaldi slots in front of Folty or Gausman, and even Newk when he throws strikes) if you intend to upgrade the rotation. I love his fastball as much as anyone else does, but committing $60 million to a guy who has already had TWO Tommy Johns and can't consistently throw strikes (and also has no breaking ball) is nuts in my book.

AA's in a position where he needs to move some of these arms and if he's not going to pony up for Realmuto, he'd probably be better off spending them on a serious rotation upgrade and spending his FA dollars on Grandal and a corner OF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top