Around the League: 2017 offseason edition / 2018 Season

ixiXSolidXixi said:
If Walker Buehler pitch today when should be the next time he pitch? Game 3? Hopefully next year lol!!
Click to expand...

Game 3 is on Sunday, and Games 1-2 are Thursday and Friday, so unless he was on a small PC, he'd go Game 3, and i'd assume Ryu/Kershaw in some way shape or form Games 1-2.
 
Southcack77 said:
There is a huge difference in the Braves taking back an aging SS with one year of control and very little value and the Marlins taking back a very high value prospect with six years of control remaining.
Click to expand...

I was talking form not content. The deals are similar in that both deals gave an indication of the Braves and Marlins wanted to appear serious about putting a competitive team on the field. As for taking on Aybar's salary, if you are trading someone like Simmons, that should be a favor enough for the team that is acquiring him. I still like Newcomb and I could stomach Ellis as a throw-in, but the Braves should have made the Angels dump Aybar somewhere else.
 
50PoundHead said:
I was talking form not content. The deals are similar in that both deals gave an indication of the Braves and Marlins wanted to appear serious about putting a competitive team on the field. As for taking on Aybar's salary, if you are trading someone like Simmons, that should be a favor enough for the team that is acquiring him. I still like Newcomb and I could stomach Ellis as a throw-in, but the Braves should have made the Angels dump Aybar somewhere else.
Click to expand...


I'm just a little bit lost as to why Lewis Brinson would be considered more as a win now player than an investment in the future.

And I don't understand why the Braves would have rather have not had Aybar. They didn't have a SS. aybar was theoretically a player who could have had a good half season and netted another low end prospect at the deadline. If he didn't affect the prospect package, and I don't think he did, there was no real drawback to take him. The Braves were not doing anything else with that money or that position.
 
Southcack77 said:
I'm just a little bit lost as to why Lewis Brinson would be considered more as a win now player than an investment in the future.

And I don't understand why the Braves would have rather have not had Aybar. They didn't have a SS. aybar was theoretically a player who could have had a good half season and netted another low end prospect at the deadline. If he didn't affect the prospect package, and I don't think he did, there was no real drawback to take him. The Braves were not doing anything else with that money or that position.
Click to expand...

By the time the Marlins are on schedule to be good, Brinson will be arbitration eligible and may become a budget issue. I don't go as far as Horsehide Harry, but if you plan on rebuilding, just rebuild. Develop a core that you can slot into the big league and develop a window of contention. That's how you have to do it if you are a mid-market or below team.

I suppose one could argue Aybar was the infield version of Nick Markakis (and although I have always liked Markakis as a player without whom we would not be in the playoffs this, his signing was a puzzling one), but was it the best resource allocation? I'm not a big fan of Jose Peraza, but if the Braves had held onto him instead of including him in a similar deal that was made to look like the Braves were trying to accelerate their contention window, they would have had someone to at least stand at SS for a season. In other words, sideways moves in which the team gained no advantage.
 
50PoundHead said:
By the time the Marlins are on schedule to be good, Brinson will be arbitration eligible and may become a budget issue. I don't go as far as Horsehide Harry, but if you plan on rebuilding, just rebuild. Develop a core that you can slot into the big league and develop a window of contention. That's how you have to do it if you are a mid-market or below team.

I suppose one could argue Aybar was the infield version of Nick Markakis (and although I have always liked Markakis as a player without whom we would not be in the playoffs this, his signing was a puzzling one), but was it the best resource allocation? I'm not a big fan of Jose Peraza, but if the Braves had held onto him instead of including him in a similar deal that was made to look like the Braves were trying to accelerate their contention window, they would have had someone to at least stand at SS for a season. In other words, sideways moves in which the team gained no advantage.
Click to expand...

We are going to have to agree to disagree here.

Brinson had six years of control remains and was rated a 60 FV kind of dude.

It the Marlins thought the was the best prospect they could get, then I think they made the right decision.

Worrying about a prospect being so good you have to pay him a lot of money in arbitration (that's really, really good) doesn't make a lot of sense. He's by definition going to be very underpaid and therefore very valuable to other clubs. You can always him flip him again for assets that make more sense to your window. Though things have gone pretty poorly if your window is more than five years out.
 
50PoundHead said:
By the time the Marlins are on schedule to be good, Brinson will be arbitration eligible and may become a budget issue. I don't go as far as Horsehide Harry, but if you plan on rebuilding, just rebuild. Develop a core that you can slot into the big league and develop a window of contention. That's how you have to do it if you are a mid-market or below team.

I'm not a big fan of Jose Peraza, but if the Braves had held onto him instead of including him in a similar deal that was made to look like the Braves were trying to accelerate their contention window, they would have had someone to at least stand at SS for a season. In other words, sideways moves in which the team gained no advantage.
Click to expand...

But taking Aybar back in a trade had nothing to do with whether the Braves kept Peraza. If you want to criticize the Oliveira deal again, I think everyone agrees with you.

Aybar also wasn't like Markakis, because Aybar was an expiring contract and Markakis was signed to four seasons.

.......

Bitch about Markakis deal all you want, but 1) he has earned the contract 2) he has been a clubhouse leader and 3) he's a major contributor to a contending baseball team in the last year of his deal.

It's worked about about exactly how the front office might have hoped despite all the naysaying and all the bitching and all the talk about how the fourth year would be a crusher.

I thought it was a somewhat pointless thing to complain about during the rebuild because it genuinely did not really matter. Complaining about it after it's been completely successful seems peculiar to me.
 
Southcack77 said:
But taking Aybar back in a trade had nothing to do with whether the Braves kept Peraza. If you want to criticize the Oliveira deal again, I think everyone agrees with you.

Aybar also wasn't like Markakis, because Aybar was an expiring contract and Markakis was signed to four seasons.

.......

Bitch about Markakis deal all you want, but 1) he has earned the contract 2) he has been a clubhouse leader and 3) he's a major contributor to a contending baseball team in the last year of his deal.

It's worked about about exactly how the front office might have hoped despite all the naysaying and all the bitching and all the talk about how the fourth year would be a crusher.

I thought it was a somewhat pointless thing to complain about during the rebuild because it genuinely did not really matter. Complaining about it after it's been completely successful seems peculiar to me.
Click to expand...

Who is bitching about Markakis? I'm one of the few who doesn't break out in hives at the mention of his name. I'm just saying that the Markakis and Aybar deals are similar to the extent that the Braves believed they needed to put a legitimate major league player on the field in those positions at that time in the rebuild. It is similar to what the Twins' front office at the behest of Tom Kelly did up here in Minnesota when he insisted he wouldn't put a bunch of guys in the field who were learning on the job. That's all I am saying.

My gripe is that Coppolella did a few sideways moves that didn't jibe with the long-term rebuilding plan. I'm not that big a fan of Simmons (although I will admit he's an all-world defender), Peraza, or Alex Wood. I just think the deals that revolved around these pieces were sideways moves made with the intention of appearing to field a competitive team. Peraza was traded before Simmons, so he wasn't around to plug in at SS. That was the point I was trying to make there. Coppolella painted himself into a corner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top