Chacin About to be Traded to Angels

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.

Maybe, or it could be they have given up on 2017 too. It is hard to know what they're doing. It seems too often like just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping and praying something sticks. If that is the 'plan' we better hope enough sticks, lol.
 
This reminds me of the Wandy misplay. Both insignificant players, but arms we could have ostensibly leveraged into higher returns had the FO practiced more patience.
 
This reminds me of the Wandy misplay. Both insignificant players, but arms we could have ostensibly leveraged into higher returns had the FO practiced more patience.

Wandy had more serious time missed and older, so less likely to hold up going forward. Chacin looks finally back and still plenty young enough to get back on track, looked well on his way too. Plus again he added a cutter last year which looked pretty good to me. Still, I agree about Wandy as you know. I am just saying it was at least more understandable all things considered.
 
I don't have an issue with trading Chacin.

It should be the first of many this season.

Chacin is essentially why they should have kept Swisher, Bourne, Bonifacio, etc.

It looks like McCreery is another one of those guys "the scouts fell in love with..." Let's hope it turns out better right now.

My only fault with trading Chacin is that they should have gotten a long range prospect with less development but more upside. The reason I say that is 40 man and 25 man future considerations. If you have 30 pitchers at the ML and minor league level who have big league potential (remember 11 or so are going to BE at the ML and have to be on the 25 man) and you are going to have some on the 15 day DL, then sooner or later you are going to be exposing a lot of guys to the rule 5 or have guys leave via minor league FA or guys that have to pass through waivers. Your 40 man is only going to contain 20 or so pitchers from the entire system. Your ML guys will be on it, the bonus baby and high end minor league guys will be on it when their time comes (Sims, Embree, Ellis, Touki, etc), so flyers on guys who have potential but no success should be on guys who are pretty far away from having the time to have to be protected.
 
I don't have an issue with trading Chacin.

It should be the first of many this season.

Chacin is essentially why they should have kept Swisher, Bourne, Bonifacio, etc.

It looks like McCreery is another one of those guys "the scouts fell in love with..." Let's hope it turns out better right now.

My only fault with trading Chacin is that they should have gotten a long range prospect with less development but more upside. The reason I say that is 40 man and 25 man future considerations. If you have 30 pitchers at the ML and minor league level who have big league potential (remember 11 or so are going to BE at the ML and have to be on the 25 man) and you are going to have some on the 15 day DL, then sooner or later you are going to be exposing a lot of guys to the rule 5 or have guys leave via minor league FA or guys that have to pass through waivers. Your 40 man is only going to contain 20 or so pitchers from the entire system. Your ML guys will be on it, the bonus baby and high end minor league guys will be on it when their time comes (Sims, Embree, Ellis, Touki, etc), so flyers on guys who have potential but no success should be on guys who are pretty far away from having the time to have to be protected.

Harry, you do realize McCreery was drafted in 2014 right... So he is over 19, so he can remain unprotected what until after the season of 2018? right?
 
I dont have a problem with the trade. I know he is old but a lot of relievers develop at a later age than other prospects. I dont think his upside is that high but I think he has the potential to be an elite LOOGY. Its crucial to the rebuilding process that we develop our own cheap relievers and dont have to participate in the mine field that are reliever free agents.
 
Harry, you do realize McCreery was drafted in 2014 right... So he is over 19, so he can remain unprotected what until after the season of 2018? right?

Didn't realize that. So, good. But was speaking in more general terms anyway as moves are made, some consideration has to be paid to potential logjams due to player control issues.
 
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 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."

You realize that's YOUR POST about the trade that landed Gant, right?

Please "wow" the rest of the world with what you KNOW about McCreery - I'm positive you've seen more of him than anyone associated with the Braves' organization.

Is John Gant the ONLY prospect in the history of baseball to make an adjustment or two and go from "nobody" to "somebody"? Not to mention he was someone YOU didn't even think was worth acquiring at the time he was traded for???

"Logic" hasn't always been friendly - you made that assumption instead of taking the time to actually ask if that's what Matt (or I) was actually inferring.

FWIW, if you'd like to actually read what my first take on the deal was, I explained it in my blog - wasting time fussing about it with someone with a personal axe to grind with me on a message board is useless and adds nothing to discussions.
 
This reminds me of the Wandy misplay. Both insignificant players, but arms we could have ostensibly leveraged into higher returns had the FO practiced more patience.

Yeah, that was my first reaction. Oh well. If it's a misstep, it's a very small one.
 
Holy crap people, it's Jhoulys Chacin.

I can't wait for this team to start winning games again, if for no other reason than we don't have to dissect every single move the team makes as though it's the move that will determine if we ever get back to the top.

This move will likely be of 0 consequence either way. Who cares.
 
Yeah, that was my first reaction. Oh well. If it's a misstep, it's a very small one.

Wandy is 37 though, 36 last year. Chacin is only 28 and not coming off such a long layoff. Plus he was very good outside of one start this year. I understand the comparison in how it was handled, how they underrated both. But Chacin has a lot more in the tank if healthy and could've even helped past this year if we gave him a chance to do so. He went 14-10 the last time he was healthy and no reason to think he cannot be that again, esp. being out of Colorado.
 
Lot of moves we have made most feel there was more out there to be had...

Sign of bad FO and poor judgement on value ?

Or

Sign of really smart fans or fans not familiar with true value ?
 
Lot of moves we have made most feel there was more out there to be had...

Sign of bad FO and poor judgement on value ?

Or

Sign of really smart fans or fans not familiar with true value ?

As a group, I think we've liked the Kimbrel and Miller trades from their inceptions. And the Olivera trade based on my recollection provoked the strongest negative reaction at the time it was made. The others there was a division of opinion. Is my memory correct? If so, it would indicated that the collective wisdom around here has not been so bad.
 
As a group, I think we've liked the Kimbrel and Miller trades from their inceptions. And the Olivera trade based on my recollection provoked the strongest negative reaction at the time it was made. The others there was a division of opinion. Is my memory correct? If so, it would indicated that the collective wisdom around here has not been so bad.

I'd say you're correct IIRC, esp. if you throw out the posters that are known to either support every move the FO makes or dislikes every move the FO makes.
 
As a group, I think we've liked the Kimbrel and Miller trades from their inceptions. And the Olivera trade based on my recollection provoked the strongest negative reaction at the time it was made. The others there was a division of opinion. Is my memory correct? If so, it would indicated that the collective wisdom around here has not been so bad.

I would think making a true judgement on value would require knowing what else was offered? I'd think so?
 
We can only pass judgment on the trades that occur. Or in some rare cases when information is provided on a trade that was turned down.

Right. Plus we can make comps noting what trade value similar players had recently. That sort of thing is useful in determining value of such players you want to flip at the deadline, etc.
 
I'd say you're correct IIRC, esp. if you throw out the posters that are known to either support every move the FO makes or dislikes every move the FO makes.

And yet again you miss the entire point of the trade. My personal support has to do with the reasoning behind it rather than the return, and has absolutely nothing to do with support (or non-support) of the front office.

What did we all know going into camp? Certain players - Aybar, Norris, Chacin, both Johnsons, Ogando, Francoeur, Beckham, and Stubbs to name several - were traded for or signed to be placeholders and that the amount of time they'd be spending on the roster would be dictated as much by the performance and readiness of the prospects in the system behind them as it would be by their own success. The brass has been consistent in the message that "we're going to let the players tell us when they're "ready". This was the entire reason Albies was challenged with the aggressive assignment to Mississippi to start the season. It was the reason for the early promotions for Mallex, Ozzie, Swanson, and Sims. The minute they felt Blair had proved his readiness, the starter performing the worst (Norris at the time) lost his rotation spot. The early performance of Folty, Perez, Jenkins, and Sims has apparently led them to believe that they'll get better production from one of them moving forward than they hoped to get from Chacin.

There are likely going to be several more trades like this one this summer that have absolutely nothing to do with the return. The hope is that some of those players will be performing well enough (and that several teams have injury concerns at their particular positions) to build enough of a market for their services that the Braves will be able to fetch a few more well-known names than McCreery in return at the times Garcia proves he can capably play LF (assuming he does), or any of Ruiz, Albies, or Swanson forces their hands. They're not going to continue playing guys like Frenchy, Aybar, Beckham, KJ, Castro, and d'Arnaud for weeks holding out hope that they'll somehow get hot enough to net them a name prospect in return if and when the "future" shows it's time.

The ONLY team desperate enough - at this point in time - that needed a SP AND didn't have available options in their system was the Angels. Why? Partly because they traded Newcomb and Ellis to us. Otherwise one or both of them might have been getting their first looks at the MLB level this week for Anaheim.
 
Back
Top