AcuñaMania

bravesfanMatt said:
it might be a mistake, but he is absolutely right. No way does Detroit trade an established MLB starter of Fulmer's caliber and under control for one prospect.. Even if it is Acuna.
Click to expand...

Even with Fulmer getting shut down due to injury? I would hope that Coppy doesn't make that trade personally.
 
thethe said:
Even with Fulmer getting shut down due to injury? I would hope that Coppy doesn't make that trade personally.
Click to expand...

I don't know anything about his injury. that would be different scenario IMO.. I am basing it off what I know and I don't follow Detroit at all. serious?
 
Funny, I was about to suggest that I didn't understand Detroit's interest in discussing him unless they wanted to sell high.

Two years of finger numbness plus a relatively low K/9 rate seems like a reason why they might consider it.
 
Acuna for Fulmer is a very, very interesting proposition. I would hope Atlanta would never entertain it. But would Detroit? Fulmer has been basically a 4-5 WAR pitcher so far, and he's just 24 with 5 more years of control beyond this year.

So you have an established, good, young SP who is under control and cheap for a while. But he is a pitcher, and they are more prone to injuries, especially devastating ones. Meanwhile, Acuna, IMO, is a pretty decent bet to end up being a 4-5+ WAR player. How soon does he get there? Who knows, but he doesn't really have a weakness so he could be a valuable player even without being a monster offensive threat early in his career.

I think I would do it if I were Detroit, and I certainly would not if I were Atlanta.
 
smootness said:
Acuna for Fulmer is a very, very interesting proposition. I would hope Atlanta would never entertain it. But would Detroit? Fulmer has been basically a 4-5 WAR pitcher so far, and he's just 24 with 5 more years of control beyond this year.

So you have an established, good, young SP who is under control and cheap for a while. But he is a pitcher, and they are more prone to injuries, especially devastating ones. Meanwhile, Acuna, IMO, is a pretty decent bet to end up being a 4-5+ WAR player. How soon does he get there? Who knows, but he doesn't really have a weakness so he could be a valuable player even without being a monster offensive threat early in his career.

I think I would do it if I were Detroit, and I certainly would not if I were Atlanta.
Click to expand...

I love Fulmer, but he's dealing with almost 2 years of nerve pain, resulting in arm numbness at times. That to me is almost scarier than a ligament tear, because there is still so little we know about/can do about nerve issues.
 
zbhargrove said:
I love Fulmer, but he's dealing with almost 2 years of nerve pain, resulting in arm numbness at times. That to me is almost scarier than a ligament tear, because there is still so little we know about/can do about nerve issues.
Click to expand...

True, which just makes it more likely Detroit would do it and less likely Atlanta would do it.

I honestly believe that Acuna's reasonable floor is something like a 3-4 win player. If they share my opinion, I don't see any way Detroit doesn't pull the trigger on that.
 
smootness said:
True, which just makes it more likely Detroit would do it and less likely Atlanta would do it.

I honestly believe that Acuna's reasonable floor is something like a 3-4 win player. If they share my opinion, I don't see any way Detroit doesn't pull the trigger on that.
Click to expand...

I want an established TOR pitcher more than anyone, but I can't let Acuna be the centerpiece when I think he has MVP potential at his peak.
 
I definately wouldn't trade Acuna for Fulmer. We have a ton of young pitching coming and not as much offense especially not elite ones. So no way I make that trade.
 
I wouldn't do it either.

But remember, it took Moncada + to get Sale.

I likely wouldn't have done that package either though.
 
I don't understand why we would be trading for established pitching. We are not going to have enough rotation spots pretty soon.
 
cajunrevenge said:
I don't understand why we would be trading for established pitching. We are not going to have enough rotation spots pretty soon.
Click to expand...

The problem is this: yes we have tons of high level pitching prospects... however, probably a quarter of those at most will make it as MLB starters, let alone living up to their ceiling. We will be lucky if only even one of those turns into a legit ace. Further, with the volatile nature of pitching... even if we have some really promising guys who look like they are going to make it, they could easily have their young careers derailed by injury from their first taste of the rigors of a MLB season (see Minor, Beachy, Hanson, Medlen.... or Wheeler, Matz, Harvey). Also, it usually takes much longer for starting pitchers to adjust to the MLB than position players. Heck, Folty is in his 3rd full MLB season and still doesn't quite have it. Do you really want to spend 3 to 4 years hoping guys will "get it" who are struggling in the majors while all of our position players age or sign contracts with other teams? You need one established durable guy who can be a number 1 or number 2. Otherwise, its a big guessing game that may or may not work out... but the statistics of success suggest it won't.
 
zbhargrove said:
The problem is this: yes we have tons of high level pitching prospects... however, probably a quarter of those at most will make it as MLB starters, let alone living up to their ceiling. We will be lucky if only even one of those turns into a legit ace. Further, with the volatile nature of pitching... even if we have some really promising guys who look like they are going to make it, they could easily have their young careers derailed by injury from their first taste of the rigors of a MLB season (see Minor, Beachy, Hanson, Medlen.... or Wheeler, Matz, Harvey). Also, it usually takes much longer for starting pitchers to adjust to the MLB than position players. Heck, Folty is in his 3rd full MLB season and still doesn't quite have it. Do you really want to spend 3 to 4 years hoping guys will "get it" who are struggling in the majors while all of our position players age or sign contracts with other teams? You need one established durable guy who can be a number 1 or number 2. Otherwise, its a big guessing game that may or may not work out... but the statistics of success suggest it won't.
Click to expand...

One: It is rare for any team to have as many high end pitching prospects as we do. That actually gives us better chances than a normal group of pitchers.

Two: We have them at every level, so they will be staggered to have a group each year.

Three: Easily have some very high floor (at worst) guys like Wright and Soroka

Four: If you really want a vet or two, you can always add a Verlander type that would do just fine in the NL.

Five:You HAVE to keep a few spots open for the young guys...even good teams in the present does that if they have the prospect to do it.

Six: Folty isn't exactly a rookie anymore, Julio, and you can even bring Dickey back who has pitched as good as anyone on our staff. Exactly how many "vets" would you like??? 3?4? The whole point of having a young cheap staff so we can compete with the bigger budget teams.

Seven: You can state the disasters like the Mets, but that's really, really bad luck. Weigel went down sure, but it is not likely THAT many pitchers go down at the same time.

Eight: If you don't actually start the young pitchers, how do you know what you have? You could be trading three Fulmers to get one. You have to let these guys develop.

Nine: It really sounds like you would have rather built with hitting instead of pitching...I get that. Trading away three or four guys to get one just defeats the purpose to me. If you are that one guy away...sure. For us right now....let's see what the young guys have.

Ten: In two years time we have just as good of chance of having the best young rotation in baseball, as we do of having a failure. At this point...Coppy and company have decided our direction...you HAVE to see it through or it is all for not.
 
TheBravos said:
One: It is rare for any team to have as many high end pitching prospects as we do. That actually gives us better chances than a normal group of pitchers.

Two: We have them at every level, so they will be staggered to have a group each year.

Three: Easily have some very high floor (at worst) guys like Wright and Soroka

Four: If you really want a vet or two, you can always add a Verlander type that would do just fine in the NL.

Five:You HAVE to keep a few spots open for the young guys...even good teams in the present does that if they have the prospect to do it.

Six: Folty isn't exactly a rookie anymore, Julio, and you can even bring Dickey back who has pitched as good as anyone on our staff. Exactly how many "vets" would you like??? 3?4? The whole point of having a young cheap staff so we can compete with the bigger budget teams.

Seven: You can state the disasters like the Mets, but that's really, really bad luck. Weigel went down sure, but it is not likely THAT many pitchers go down at the same time.

Eight: If you don't actually start the young pitchers, how do you know what you have? You could be trading three Fulmers to get one. You have to let these guys develop.

Nine: It really sounds like you would have rather built with hitting instead of pitching...I get that. Trading away three or four guys to get one just defeats the purpose to me. If you are that one guy away...sure. For us right now....let's see what the young guys have.

Ten: In two years time we have just as good of chance of having the best young rotation in baseball, as we do of having a failure. At this point...Coppy and company have decided our direction...you HAVE to see it through or it is all for not.
Click to expand...

I'm just telling you why banking on starting pitching prospects is dangerous... yes the Mets situation was bad luck. So was Hanson, Beachy, Minor, and Medlen. I never said I wanted 3/4 vets... I just want ONE proven durable 1 or 2. No matter what, you're never going to be able to start every pitching prospect we have at a long enough sample size in the majors. Some will have to be traded.

I'm against trading for Fulmer at his likely price. I'm probably against trading for Archer at his likely price. I don't know what the answer is, but I think putting together a rotation of our young prospects and developing them is going to take quite a bit longer than many of you think.
 
zbhargrove said:
I'm just telling you why banking on starting pitching prospects is dangerous... yes the Mets situation was bad luck. So was Hanson, Beachy, Minor, and Medlen. I never said I wanted 3/4 vets... I just want ONE proven durable 1 or 2. No matter what, you're never going to be able to start every pitching prospect we have at a long enough sample size in the majors. Some will have to be traded.

I'm against trading for Fulmer at his likely price. I'm probably against trading for Archer at his likely price. I don't know what the answer is, but I think putting together a rotation of our young prospects and developing them is going to take quite a bit longer than many of you think.
Click to expand...

I'm all for trading some....heck we will have to. I am fine picking up a vet (even if he is short term and pricey). I would rather pay more money for one than prospects. The problem about trading for Fulmer or Archer...it won't just be pitching prospects. There will be a Albies or like position player, and we just don't have that many of those. We are just at the edge of the real pitching coming up. I never really had much hopes for the Wisler and Blair types. To me, next year is the beginning of the REAL guys coming up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top