Braves trade Mallex and Simmons to M's for Gohara and Burrows

Ventura's Stolen Bases said:
But they already had the other prospects in the deal, so it could have just been Gohara and those guys, which implies Tampa likes Mallex more than Gohara (or is heavily valuing proximity to the majors).

Kinda funny that I agree with your opinions completely on this trade since I'm all about the nuances.
Click to expand...

But Seattle may not have been willing to give up Gohara plus those guys for Smyly. This way, they at least got Simmons as well.
 
TheBravos said:
So the fact that he hit over 100 RBIs, and 35 HR's in the two worst hitters parks in baseball means nothing.

In a hitter friendly park he would be batting in about 130 RBI and 40 HRs.

Our offense went from literally unwatchable , to one of the better ones in the league. That wasn't all him, BUT he had a BIG part in it.

WAR is only ONE way to evaluate a player's performance. It's not the end all be all.

I wasn't too big on the Kemp trade, but I can't argue the results....I don't see how anyone can. Any GM would take a 40 HR/ 100 + RBI guy...
Click to expand...

If we had a rotation full of Tim Hudson's, I would agree with you because outfield defense wouldn't matter. Unfortunately, our guys that will be starting while Kemp is here are mostly flyball.
 
nsacpi said:
It is pretty clear that Tampa values Mallex over Gohara. And even more clear they would value Shae plus Mallex over Gohara.
Click to expand...

And if this is the case, that's fine. Different FOs will have different opinions. It doesn't in any way mean they're right.
 
smootness said:
The goal was to get as many high upside guys as we could get.
Click to expand...

If so why do we make so many trades that need to get "topped off" by players like Ellis, Jenkins, Aybar, Thurman and now Burrows.

I would prefer that we be the party sending players like that to even things out.
 
smootness said:
And if this is the case, that's fine. Different FOs will have different opinions. It doesn't in any way mean they're right.
Click to expand...

True. The fact that Tampa Bay seems to favor Mallex doesn't settle the matter. But it is something to consider.
 
smootness said:
The goal was to get as many high upside guys as we could get. There is clearly a strategy to minimize risk by getting numerous high-upside assets. You may consider that 'quantity' but it's not a bunch of middling guys. You also have to have trade partners. There's no guarantee that packaging all those guys will return as much value.

When you're getting prospects in return for major leaguers, you're always going to give up fewer players than you're getting. But the track record of the team's getting prospect hauls in deals like that is pretty good.
Click to expand...

Also no guarantee that doing it would have fit other teams budgets or rosters or that they would have given up their very best prospect.

Problem was also the lack of control on the players who were traded, in some cases, meant they had limited value despite being quite good players.

To me the braves have established a good core of prospects in the AA and below strata that should power their rebuild in the long term.

They seem to be reshuffling some of the middling acquisitions for more upside in lower ranks. Seems a reasonable path for a team that is still spending money on veterans at major league level to be respectable.

I think where they have been a little deceptive is in allowing the impression that they were going to try to contend in the first years in new park. That's not what they ever intended in my view.
 
nsacpi said:
If so why do we make so many trades that need to get "topped off" by players like Ellis, Jenkins, Aybar, Thurman and now Burrows.

I would prefer that we be the party sending players like that to even things out.
Click to expand...

Because we've been the team sending major league players for minor league players. You would prefer us to send multiple major leaguers for one minor leaguer?
 
Southcack77 said:
That's not what they ever intended in my view.
Click to expand...

None of us can read minds. We can only go by what they share with the public. And we get to apply however many grains of salt that we think appropriate. I take it you apply truckload of it.
 
smootness said:
Sure, just like the fact that Atlanta preferred Gohara over Mallex or Smyly is something for Tampa to consider.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big fan of the argument that any trade the FO makes deserves a certain deference due to it having so many good baseball men who know so much more than the rest of us (after all every trade involves competing judgments by two front offices). So I'm taking a little pleasure at this rare opportunity to turn the tables with a similar argument.

PS: See post immediately above for Exhibit A of what I'm talking about.
 
I really think its difficult to say the Braves went with this approach when we just do not have any idea what the other deals on the table were. Its very possible the Braves took the highest upside offer in every single one.
 
smootness said:
Because we've been the team sending major league players for minor league players. You would prefer us to send multiple major leaguers for one minor leaguer?
Click to expand...

My preference is for quality over quantity. That's why I was never impressed by the FO (and their acolytes around here) beating their chests over building up such a "deep" farm system. So far it looks like all of that "depth" is going to end up playing on the waiver wire merry-go-round (assuming they ever make a 40-man roster).
 
nsacpi said:
My preference is for quality over quantity. That's why I was never impressed by the FO (and their acolytes around here) beating their chests over building up such a "deep" farm system. So far it looks like all of that "depth" is going to end up playing on the waiver wire merry-go-round (assuming they ever make a 40-man roster).
Click to expand...

Is quantity considered having maybe 7-9 guys on multiple top 100 listings?
 
thethe said:
Is quantity considered having maybe 7-9 guys on multiple top 100 listings?
Click to expand...

I don't completely discount guys in the bottom half of the Top 100 list. But they are worth significantly less that the ones further up the list (on average). And it is worth pointing out that with the exception of Swanson, our very best prospects (Albies, Allard, Soroka, Acuna, Maitan, Anderson) have not been acquired by trade.

I would add that Gohara has yet to make a Top 100, much less a Top 50. Maybe he will. But he ain't there yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top