Chacin About to be Traded to Angels

Enscheff said:
The guy the Braves just got is 23 and in rookie ball. Do you know where Gant was when he was 23? Oh wait, that's this year, when he's in Atlanta having already thrown 7 innings at the MLB level after putting up 24 innings of sub-3.00 ERA at AAA.

You say a lot of really stupid things, but comparing Gant and this new guy as if Gant was anywhere near the same level of non-prospect tops the list.

I swear the posters on this site used to more knowledgeable, right?
Click to expand...

dude, Gant was in A+ ball at 22 and just promoted to AA when we traded for him.. he was irrelevant in the Mets system and just about everyone thought this was an organizational filler trade. I think the comparison is spot on and you need to factor that McCreery was dealing with elbow issues ,thus pushing him back a few years.. But we know you would never admit your mistake, so I don't expect anything but snark from you...
 
bravesfanMatt said:
dude, Gant was in A+ ball at 22 and just promoted to AA when we traded for him.. he was irrelevant in the Mets system and just about everyone thought this was an organizational filler trade. I think the comparison is spot on and you need to factor that McCreery was dealing with elbow issues ,thus pushing him back a few years.. But we know you would never admit your mistake, so I don't expect anything but snark from you...
Click to expand...

Not really, Gant already had started 11 games in AA with the Mets and you're also comparing a starter to an older lefty reliever with control issues, not even another starter. Also, despite Bowman and media focusing more on Whalen it wasn't hard to find that Gant was the better of the two with a little research.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
dude, Gant was in A+ ball at 22 and just promoted to AA when we traded for him.. he was irrelevant in the Mets system and just about everyone thought this was an organizational filler trade. I think the comparison is spot on and you need to factor that McCreery was dealing with elbow issues ,thus pushing him back a few years.. But we know you would never admit your mistake, so I don't expect anything but snark from you...
Click to expand...

My mistake? Calling Gant a better prospect than McCreery is a mistake? Let's compare the 2 guys, shall we?

At the age of 22 Gant had made 11 mediocre starts at AA before he was traded. Before that he had just pitched well in A+ for 40 innings. Are you going to admit you were wrong?

McCreery is 23 and hasn't left rookie ball, and he hasn't even thrown an official pitch this year. He is the definition of a non-prospect.

Great, another dumb poster jumps to the defense of the dumbest poster on the board because he figured the dumbest guy's feelings were hurt.
 
Gant made a mechanical change while with the Mets minor league system that led to his newfound prospect relevancy. I think this was priced into the trade more than anyone realized at the time.

Not seeing how McCreery is in the same tier as Gant. He has an injury history and issues with mechanics. He has spent his age 21 and 22 seasons thus far in Rookie ball compiling an 8 BB rate. Let's hope it works out, but this is a project-and-a-half.
 
dak said:
Gant made a mechanical change while with the Mets minor league system that led to his newfound prospect relevancy. I think this was priced into the trade more than anyone realized at the time.

Not seeing how McCreery is in the same tier as Gant. He has an injury history and issues with mechanics. He has spent his age 21 and 22 seasons thus far in Rookie ball compiling an 8 BB rate. Let's hope it works out, but this is a project-and-a-half.
Click to expand...

Nope, clv and matt are great baseball minds. They say Gant and McCreery are on the same level so it must be so!
 
dak said:
Gant made a mechanical change while with the Mets minor league system that led to his newfound prospect relevancy. I think this was priced into the trade more than anyone realized at the time.

Not seeing how McCreery is in the same tier as Gant. He has an injury history and issues with mechanics. He has spent his age 21 and 22 seasons thus far in Rookie ball compiling an 8 BB rate. Let's hope it works out, but this is a project-and-a-half.
Click to expand...

The difference in the return in this trade and the Gant/Whalen trade is glaring. True that we sent two players for Gant/Whalen. But that trade was made July 24.
 
nsacpi said:
The difference in the return in this trade and the Gant/Whalen trade is glaring. True that we sent two players for Gant/Whalen. But that trade was made July 24.
Click to expand...

That's my whole point: why trade Chacin for nothing when Chacin plus another bench piece might have gotten the team something like Gant?

Assuming, of course, you have more than 3 brain cells to rub together and don't think McCreery has the same value as Gant...
 
6a00d8341c630a53ef0168e9924e53970c-pi


JS: "We got an award winner, and someone that will draw people to the stadium to watch him perform."
 
This FO has done well in trades where the other party has been eager for the deal--the Kimbrel and Miller trades. But generally it has done poorly otherwise. I think there is an issue of impatience here. Maybe a lack of maturity and seasoning on JC's part. I think he gets overly eager to get something done sometimes and can't wait until his asking price (or what should be the asking price) is met. He needs to learn how to be a more cagey and play hard to get. Use the other party's desire to get the deal done to his advantage.
 
dak said:
Gant made a mechanical change while with the Mets minor league system that led to his newfound prospect relevancy. I think this was priced into the trade more than anyone realized at the time.

Not seeing how McCreery is in the same tier as Gant. He has an injury history and issues with mechanics. He has spent his age 21 and 22 seasons thus far in Rookie ball compiling an 8 BB rate. Let's hope it works out, but this is a project-and-a-half.
Click to expand...

Yep, plus Mets prospect boards knew that at the time and that is what made me look at Gant more than Whalen, then after seeing both it was clear Gant was good and Whalen well not so much IMO.
 
nsacpi said:
This FO has done well in trades where the other party has been eager for the deal--the Kimbrel and Miller trades. But generally it has done poorly otherwise. I think there is an issue of impatience here. Maybe a lack of maturity and seasoning on JC's part. I think he gets overly eager to get something done sometimes and can't wait until his asking price (or what should be the asking price) is met. He needs to learn how to be a more cagey and play hard to get. Use the other party's desire to get the deal done to his advantage.
Click to expand...

So it isn't just me noticing this and finding such concerning. Then again that doesn't make me feel better. :)
 
Enscheff said:
The guy the Braves just got is 23 and in rookie ball. Do you know where Gant was when he was 23? Oh wait, that's this year, when he's in Atlanta having already thrown 7 innings at the MLB level after putting up 24 innings of sub-3.00 ERA at AAA.

You say a lot of really stupid things, but comparing Gant and this new guy as if Gant was anywhere near the same level of non-prospect tops the list.

I swear the posters on this site used to more knowledgeable, right?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, thrill us with your never-ending pool of knowledge oh "Great One" - please share with one and all the story about how YOU always knew how underrated John Gant was and how everyone else (other than 1976, of course) were absolute idiots for not realizing he was going to become the best pitching prospect the Braves landed in a trade since John Smoltz. This unbelievable talent that was plodding away with a 4.70 ERA and 1.57 WHIP for the Mutts' AA affiliate was going to become one of the all-time greatest "steals" when we fleeced them. The same John Gant that wasn't even in the Mutts' MLB Pipeline Top 30 at the time of the trade that came in as our #25 (one spot below Whalen BTW) immediately following the trade.

Before you two take credit for such foresight, make sure someone else posted this other than either of you...

"This is exactly what I didn't want the Braves to do with these trade pieces...trade them 1 for 1 and acquire C level prospects. I would have much rather the KJ/Uribe package (the most offense this current roster can offer a contender) bring back a single B prospect than 2 C level prospects. Maybe that type of deal wasn't available, so who knows."

"This after re-signing Fredi is just more disappointing IMO."

"Yea, plus KJ and Uribe are two fan favorites I didn't want to see playing for a division rival either. I still would want to bring back both for next year but I doubt Uribe returns now.

I know we disliked Uribe as a Dodger but he quickly won me over here with his bat, glove, humor, and rep in the clubhouse."

"I am more annoyed about trading Uribe as by doing so we are less likely to bring him back next year. But it also seems they never were that high on bringing back Uribe anyway. Which I find stupid if true, just as I find them refusing to make Markakis available in a trade even more stupid (surprisingly they have been asked about trading Markakis and won't even listen on him).

PS: I would be more okay about trading Uribe with KJ if I liked the prospects we got back. But I am not sold on them either so I can see where striker is coming from there."

"The more I hear about this trade the less I like it. The next update will be that we sent 750K I suppose. :)"

http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3930&highlight=kelly+johnson+juan+uribe+traded
 
Enscheff said:
Nope, clv and matt are great baseball minds. They say Gant and McCreery are on the same level so it must be so!
Click to expand...

At least use "facts" when quoting someone - putting your words into others' statements isn't the best way to show you're smart. I beg you to find one instance where I compared John Gant and McCreery - PLEASE.

They were both complete unknowns at the time the Braves traded for them - their situations are the only things they have in common.
 
MLBTR just had listed Chacin among their list of players that has improved their trade value, we underrated him and just basically dumped him when if we wait at the trade deadline we could've gotten a real return for him. Shoot Philly got a lot for crappy Hernandez by doing just that not long ago and Chacin is way better than him. Nsacpi nailed it above in other words.
 
clvclv said:
At least use "facts" when quoting someone - putting your words into others' statements isn't the best way to show you're smart. I beg you to find one instance where I compared John Gant and McCreery - PLEASE.

They were both complete unknowns at the time the Braves traded for them - their situations are the only things they have in common.
Click to expand...

I find ignoring passive behavior is a better course. No need to humor his behavior with a response. He knows he has nothing to go by so he will twist to fit his narrative. Quite dumb and really not worth my effort. I agree and disagree with many on this board. But I don't respond to children when acting like children. Not with my kids and not with posters.
 
Coppy: "Don't question us, when someone else wants to make a trade, you have to make it, otherwise you don't get another chance. You understand? It's not so simple as all you guys think."
 
clvclv said:
At least use "facts" when quoting someone - putting your words into others' statements isn't the best way to show you're smart. I beg you to find one instance where I compared John Gant and McCreery - PLEASE.

They were both complete unknowns at the time the Braves traded for them - their situations are the only things they have in common.
Click to expand...

Logic really isn't your strong suit. Even your buddy Matt defended you by calling your comparison to Gant spot on. I say I would have preferred an actual prospect like Gant, you say he was a non-prospect, which I just said about McCreery. It is logical to conclude you are equating McCreery to Gant as prospects.

You know, if A = B, and B = C, that implies A = C. I said McCreery (A) is a non-prospect (B), you say Gant (C) was also a non-prospect, therefore A = C.

Do I really need to baby step you through simple logical steps like this? Even Matt was able to follow that logic.

And it is possible to not be thrilled with Gant as a return while still thinking he is a significantly better return than McCreery. Gant was an underwhelming return, but McCreery is basically zero return.
 
This trade is similar to the Maybin trade in the sense that haste led us to get an underwhelming return. There was no deadline that compelled us to move Chacin so quickly for so little. This is a minor trade but part of a larger pattern.
 
nsacpi said:
This trade is similar to the Maybin trade in the sense that haste led us to get an underwhelming return. There was no deadline that compelled us to move Chacin so quickly for so little. This is a minor trade but part of a larger pattern.
Click to expand...

Agreed, though I think I value Chacin more than most do here. I've always liked him and remember he added a cutter last year and showed signs of getting more velocity back so far this year (topping out at 94 mph or 95 mph at times, when before not near that). But to your point, that is what really concerns me a lot. I'm now more afraid that we will trade Inciarte and get a return not worth doing so while keeping Markakis when we could get the same and similar return while spending more on him and getting less overall value. It is going to happen IMO, almost did already. If so, it will backfire in that we won't challenge as strongly next season had we done things differently. Just like once we trade Teheran now we won't have a good veteran like Chacin to help out the young staff. But hey maybe we can overpay for another Norris next off-season.
 
Braves1976 said:
Agreed, though I think I value Chacin more than most do here. I've always liked him and remember he added a cutter last year and showed signs of getting more velocity back so far this year (topping out at 94 mph or 95 mph at times, when before not near that). But to your point, that is what really concerns me a lot. I'm now more afraid that we will trade Inciarte and get a return not worth doing so while keeping Markakis when we could get the same and similar return while spending more on him and getting less overall value. It is going to happen IMO, almost did already. If so, it will backfire in that we won't challenge as strongly next season had we done things differently. Just like once we trade Teheran now we won't have a good veteran like Chacin to help out the young staff. But hey maybe we can overpay for another Norris next off-season.
Click to expand...

This is my concern. I feel we would be better trading JT over chacin assuming we need to keep one. However, I trust they know what they are doing and have a plan. Maybe they are keeping JT one more season.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top