Braves Should Avoid Becoming Diamondbacks

zbhargrove said:
That's a lot to give up but it's a far far cry from giving up the farm man. All of those prospects are expendable and Wisler wouldn't be needed anymore. Riley's swing is too long and slow, trade him while he still has value. We have plenty of third base possibilities also far away. Albies is the only one that stings but he's definitely replaceable.
Click to expand...

Thus why I said 'some of the farm'. And I will just disagree that Albies is definitely replaceable.
 
This concept of replaceability puzzles me a bit. If you have two houses and decide to sell one, do you sell it cheaply because you have two? I don't think so. You try to get a price that is reflective of the value of the house. So regardless of what you think of the merits of Demeritte or any other player who could play second in our system, any trade we consider involving Albies should be based on our undertanding of his market value.
 
thethe said:
I read something the other day that talked about the volitaity of pitchers and that extra years of control aren't as valuable as they would be with hitters.

Sure, its nice to have but at some point pitchers are going to blow up and then those extra years mean little to nothing.
Click to expand...

You might have read that in the "Chris Sale Is God" handbook.

If those extra years mean "little to nothing", why in the world is everybody trying to lock players up early? Why is everyone lining up to get players (particularly SPs) with as many years of control remaining as they can get??? Inexpensive, controllable, young starting pitching has ALWAYS been the most desired asset in the game - and it will continue to be for as long as most people on this board are around. Why in the world do you think Julio Teheran is such a valuable commodity? It's not because he's got a 91 MPH fastball. Tell someone working in a front office that those extra years of control mean nothing and you'll get laughed out of the city you're in.

Hate to say it, but if you think 2 extra years of Chris Archer for significantly less than what Castrovince proposes for Sale isn't a much better deal, you're nuts. Seriously.

If Coppy could get Archer for Newcomb and Albies, they'd have already had a press conference.
 
nsacpi said:
Archer is more valuable given the contract. Albies plus Newcomb for Archer is a fair trade. About 13 wins worth of expected surplus value on both sides.
Click to expand...

I think there would be a premium on the Rays side for perceived uncertainty of the prospects. While those two might result in that much surplus value there's a wider range of variance in the outcomes which would require Tampa to need more. I'd be inclined, of course, to give it to them.
 
zbhargrove said:
That's a lot to give up but it's a far far cry from giving up the farm man. All of those prospects are expendable and Wisler wouldn't be needed anymore. Riley's swing is too long and slow, trade him while he still has value. We have plenty of third base possibilities also far away. Albies is the only one that stings but he's definitely replaceable.
Click to expand...

Trades should hurt. That way the other guy gets something and hopefully makes him better. And then the other pieces who have had some success in the lower minors, well, you're probably right about Riley, but there's a chance he makes adjustments that keep him moving forward. He's already done it once. And it's okay to let the other guy wait on him.

Meanwhile, we get our man. As you say, that's not gutting the farm. You've got lots of farm left. That's why we built it up.
 
smootness said:
Thus why I said 'some of the farm'. And I will just disagree that Albies is definitely replaceable.
Click to expand...

Not slamming your viewpoint on Albies, but he hit .248/.307/.351 in 247 AAA at bats last year. He's a whole lot less interesting when he projects to pedestrian offensive ability. I think he'll figure it out, you do, too, but he might be Nick Ahmed, not Jose Altuve.
 
thethe said:
I guess we differ in that I'm not seeing this massive regression on offense. No we won't be scoring 6 runs a game like we did in September but the first half offense isn't even worth discussing. We are just a significantly different team now.

The pitching though would be DRASTICALLY improved which in turn would drastically improve put bullpen production. Over 162 that amounts to a lot of wins.
Click to expand...

I agree with this thinking. There's a real synergistic effect that comes from an addition like this that isn't captured by valuing the past statistical value of the other players. Perhaps some of that could be quantified - for instance, looking at the performance of relievers who pitch less or less often.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
Trades should hurt. That way the other guy gets something and hopefully makes him better. And then the other pieces who have had some success in the lower minors, well, you're probably right about Riley, but there's a chance he makes adjustments that keep him moving forward. He's already done it once. And it's okay to let the other guy wait on him.

Meanwhile, we get our man. As you say, that's not gutting the farm. You've got lots of farm left. That's why we built it up.
Click to expand...

Newcomb, Sims, and Albies are the thing to worry about. I wouldn't really think twice about Riley or Wisler in the context of this deal. I'd be happy those were guys that the other team was asking about.
 
thethe said:
I read something the other day that talked about the volitaity of pitchers and that extra years of control aren't as valuable as they would be with hitters.

Sure, its nice to have but at some point pitchers are going to blow up and then those extra years mean little to nothing.
Click to expand...

While I agree there's increasing variance (risk) with more years with pitchers versus hitters, I disagree that control in years four and five means next to nothing.

Plus in Archer's case it's two team options, which reduces the risk significantly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top