Fangraphs Top 100 Prospects

thewupk said:
That's fine. I just feel there is a multitude of reasons on why Kemp hit better in the 2nd half (which he was doing in San Diego before coming over) than starting to care about baseball when he got to Atlanta.
Click to expand...

That's valid. I'm more curious as to how he will hit this year based on all we have heard about his off season committment. Maybe it's worse. We will find out.
 
thewupk said:
The goal should be to make your franchise better. Winning games at the end of 2016 doesn't accomplish that.
Click to expand...

Still believe you need to consider the possibility that other factors play into this other than wind and losses and draft position.
 
thewupk said:
I doubt most fans would even care or know what that means. There are 162 games in a season. This isn't like tanking in the NFL where you just have 12 games. When you are losing 90 games 1 more isn't going to cause fans to mass exodus.
Click to expand...

That assumes an awful lot, and frankly sounds a lot more like a condescending Emscheff comment than you. Fans tend to notice a lot more during a rebuild process and when their teams are losing than they do during good times. There always seem to be more voices for them to hear discussing "what's wrong?" during those times as well. There wasn't much discussion of how the farm system was getting worse while Wren was around because the big club was doing well, but it sure didn't take long for that to become obvious when there was even a little trouble at the major league level.

Truth be told, even "average fans" are much more advanced than they were in the past than we give them credit for, and they (at the very least) have more access to people offering up that kind of information than they did in the past. That likely has a lot to do with the way this rebuild has been handled - the brass is scared to death of being accused of "tanking", whether that would move the process along faster or not. The Braves have historically had attendance problems during good times, they certainly don't want to risk driving chunks of an already fickle fanbase away by "trying" to lose.
 
thewupk said:
Give key players more days off as the season ends. Not managing game 155 as it's the 7th game of the World Series.
Click to expand...

It certainly was for several people - Snitker was trying to get a job. Same for d'Arnaud, Jace, etc.. I'd be willing to bet that people like that have absolutely no interest in draft position.
 
thewupk said:
Also true. I forget what it ended up being but the true cost of Kemp was something in the 10 million per year figure when factoring in HO's dead money. One dimensional sluggers were getting a lot less this offseason. Copy is gambling that Kemp's 2nd half offense will carry over and be a 1-2 WAR player. In that range it's not a bad deal but that's the optimistic scenario and not the realistic one.
Click to expand...

I have not liked that frame, because it seemed to suggest that the Braves made something out of Oliveira. Maybe there was some financial advantage to someone in the Padres waiving Oliveira rather than the Braves waiving him, but essentially there were two components of the transaction: 1) Oliveira being waived and 2) Padres sending Braves money to offset Kemp's salary. Braves seemed to want to save face in saying that Oliveira was traded for something of value.

But, if you look at is as the Padres sent the Braves money to take Kemp and the result was Braves paying Kemp 10 million a year, I suppose that works to a degree. But the Braves are still writing an 18 million dollar check and I'm not sure how much not paying Oliveira actually offsets that? And is Kemp worth 10 million even if it is real?
 
thethe said:
Still believe you need to consider the possibility that other factors play into this other than wind and losses and draft position.
Click to expand...

I'm not condoning calling up the AAA team and sitting everyone. But key days off for people and the way the games were managed at times were puzzling. Snit seemed to be managing for his job which I guess worked out for him.
 
sturg33 said:
Would have held an extra year control if we held him down for first 9 days of 2017
Click to expand...

To be fair that is not what you said earlier. Even still playing with service time is a dangerous game. We want Swanson here not for 7 years but for 12.
 
Southcack77 said:
I have not liked that frame, because it seemed to suggest that the Braves made something out of Oliveira. Maybe there was some financial advantage to someone in the Padres waiving Oliveira rather than the Braves waiving him, but essentially there were two components of the transaction: 1) Oliveira being waived and 2) Padres sending Braves money to offset Kemp's salary. Braves seemed to want to save face in saying that Oliveira was traded for something of value.

But, if you look at is as the Padres sent the Braves money to take Kemp and the result was Braves paying Kemp 10 million a year, I suppose that works to a degree. But the Braves are still writing an 18 million dollar check and I'm not sure how much not paying Oliveira actually offsets that? And is Kemp worth 10 million even if it is real?
Click to expand...

I'm fine with saying the Braves are paying Kemp ~10 million a year. HO was dead money that they were paying regardless and he wasn't going to be on the team. So I'm fine looking at it that way. Kemp however has not been worth that amount for the last 2 seasons. His time with Atlanta last year he did play at that level so I guess it's up to the individual to believe if that's what we are going to get going forward or he's really the sub 1 WAR player he has been the last 2 seasons.
 
thethe said:
To be fair that is not what you said earlier. Even still playing with service time is a dangerous game. We want Swanson here not for 7 years but for 12.
Click to expand...

Honestly the ideal scenario is to sign Swanson long term and buy out 3 FA years. That's through his age 31 season and all of his prime. Let someone else pay for what he did do instead of what he will do.
 
thewupk said:
Honestly the ideal scenario is to sign Swanson long term and buy out 3 FA years. That's through his age 31 season and all of his prime. Let someone else pay for what he did do instead of what he will do.
Click to expand...

And I think it'd more likely yhat we get him till that age range if we don't eff with his service time. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Kristen bryant. Cubs have unlimited money so they'll sign him but it hasn't exacrly been cordial between the two since the cubs played with his service time.
 
clvclv said:
That assumes an awful lot, and frankly sounds a lot more like a condescending Emscheff comment than you. Fans tend to notice a lot more during a rebuild process and when their teams are losing than they do during good times. There always seem to be more voices for them to hear discussing "what's wrong?" during those times as well. There wasn't much discussion of how the farm system was getting worse while Wren was around because the big club was doing well, but it sure didn't take long for that to become obvious when there was even a little trouble at the major league level.

Truth be told, even "average fans" are much more advanced than they were in the past than we give them credit for, and they (at the very least) have more access to people offering up that kind of information than they did in the past. That likely has a lot to do with the way this rebuild has been handled - the brass is scared to death of being accused of "tanking", whether that would move the process along faster or not. The Braves have historically had attendance problems during good times, they certainly don't want to risk driving chunks of an already fickle fanbase away by "trying" to lose.
Click to expand...

Winning brings fans to the park. That is the #1 truth with attendance. A new stadium can assist in this for a short time but in the end it's all about winning. If your team is good the fans will come. If the Braves went into total tank mode the attendance would suffer. But imo that would accelerate the rebuild and get to a point where the team is good and the fans would return.

Also we are talking about a couple of games here and there. Over 162 this inconsequential to the attendance. But in the draft and getting the BPA it's huge. The Braves are worse of by picking 5th instead of 2nd. There is no way to deny that imo.
 
thethe said:
To be fair that is not what you said earlier. Even still playing with service time is a dangerous game. We want Swanson here not for 7 years but for 12.
Click to expand...

it will be interesting to see the Bryant thing play out. He was not happy with the Cubs, but then winning forgives a lot of things. He might understand the business side and just take the extension when offered. Or he might say, screw you I am maxing out somewhere else.

as for Swanson, I really don't think control is going to be an issue AT ALL. We are going to lock him up with guaranteed money prior to any arb years happening. Bringing him up when they did, was saying the torch is now yours (after E-bar trade). Show us that you can hold it please. I assume Ozzie is going to be the same thing when we trade BP.
 
thethe said:
And I think it'd more likely yhat we get him till that age range if we don't eff with his service time. It'll be interesting to see what happens with Kristen bryant. Cubs have unlimited money so they'll sign him but it hasn't exacrly been cordial between the two since the cubs played with his service time.
Click to expand...

I agree with the callup of Swanson. I think he was at a point where he needed MLB experience to further develop. Also I am a fan of staggering players like Swanson, Albies, and eventually Acuna so they aren't all hitting arbitration and FA at the same time. It's also logical to rather have 1 full season at like 27 instead of 1 extra month at age 21.
 
thewupk said:
I'm not condoning calling up the AAA team and sitting everyone. But key days off for people and the way the games were managed at times were puzzling. Snit seemed to be managing for his job which I guess worked out for him.
Click to expand...

Puzzling is the right word. There was an urgency to win at the end of last year that was puzzling. I have some thoughts on what was going on organizationally but it is only speculation.
 
striker42 said:
I personally would have taken Lewis as well but I can understand if our scouts saw something they didn't like. It'll suck if he ends up being Jermaine Dye II which is what I think he'll be but I'm willing to accept there being red flags there. But apart from Lewis, I just don't like the Anderson pick. There are 5 or 6 ways I'd rather have seen the Braves go.

There's always a degree of projection involved with prospects. You just have to ask yourself if the projection is reasonable. Take Newcomb for instance. His stuff is excellent. The only thing standing between him and the majors is control. If he can drop his BB rate by one batter every 9 then he should be a very valuable piece. It's entirely reasonable to project Newcomb fine tuning his control that much. If Newcomb were to drop his BB rate to under 2 batters every 9 then he'd be one of the most dominant pitchers in the game. However, that's an improvement that's hard to project. That's an unreasonably large improvement.

With Anderson, in order for him to be a front line starter, as his fans say his ceiling is and what you want in a 3rd overall pick, he's going to need a hard to project jump. Right now you can probably project his fastball gaining some consistency and eventually sitting at 93 with decent life, you can project him tightening up his breaking ball and it going from a slurve to a true slider, and you can project his changeup becoming an average to above average MLB pitch. You put all that together and you've got a Trevor Bauer on your hands. A middle of the rotation starter that you really wish was more than that.

The problem is that Anderson needs a projection you just can't make to become a front line starter. With his lack of a dominant secondary offering, his fastball would need a significant jump. If he's going to be an ace that hangs his hat on his fastball then he'll probably need it to jump to sitting around 96 at least. Right now that's close to the top end of his range when he muscles up on one. It's hard to project his fastball to sit that high. Alternatively, he'll need to elevate one of his secondary pitches to being a plus, plus pitch. Neither one projects that high and it would be a stretch to do so.

Anderson's skill set is such that if something jumps to really exceptional, he doesn't have anything holding him back but there's nothing he does that projects to be exceptional. He'll require an impossible to predict improvement. That's why I'm not a fan of the pick.
Click to expand...

The Braves at least profess that they see Anderson's upside as a borderline hall of famer, since their comp is Mike Mussina.
 
nsacpi said:
Puzzling is the right word. There was an urgency to win at the end of last year that was puzzling. I have some thoughts on what was going on organizationally but it is only speculation.
Click to expand...

You can't lose games on purpose. The FO can try to assemble a team that is likely to lose a bunch of games, but once the team is assembled, you can't advocate for anything but winning games. Period. So I'm not sure what people want. Would you rather they left Dansby back until this year? Benched our best players? I'm just not sure what anyone wants.

The players are always going to go out and try to win, and making it clear you're trying to avoid that is a potentially disastrous move. Plus, it is good to have a little bit of momentum going into this year with the new park. That park will be extremely important for revenues going forward, and it is important to have as much revenues as we can right off the bat. That is more important than having the #2 pick rather than the #5 pick in an MLB draft.
 
thethe said:
So basically tell the fans to stop showing up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure people show up to watch baseball games for many different reasons, but I'm reasonably sure a fair number of people making the conscious choice to go watch the first, second, or third worst team in baseball aren't necessarily going to the game super intent on whether the Braves win or not.
 
Southcack77 said:
The Braves at least profess that they see Anderson's upside as a borderline hall of famer, since their comp is Mike Mussina.
Click to expand...

And take the comps drafting teams throw out after drafting a player with a huge grain of salt. Pretty much everyone in the first round is compared to a borderline HOFer.

I do enjoy trying to figure out comps though. Trevor Bauer is one I read for Anderson and I could see that happening. Similar fastballs and changeups. Bauer had a curve and slider but looks to have abandoned the slider. Anderson's breaking ball could go either way. Both were also 3rd overall picks oddly enough.

I might throw Kip Wells out there as another comp for Anderson. I could see Anderson having a very similar career to Wells.
 
clvclv said:
It certainly was for several people - Snitker was trying to get a job. Same for d'Arnaud, Jace, etc.. I'd be willing to bet that people like that have absolutely no interest in draft position.
Click to expand...

That's probably true, but the fate of those guys probably isn't something that the organization needs to base decisions upon. In fact, perhaps the Braves would have been better served by having an interim manager who wasn't coaching for a job. Honestly, that may well have been what they thought they had done with Snitker though. I don't sense they intended it to be a tryout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top