Won't get an argument from me.
Gattis Traded To Astros (pg. 13)
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
Won't get an argument from me.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
To me being on the edge of the playoffs is a perfectly acceptable place to be. Just about every year a team like that gets some pixie dust sprinkled on it and does something special. In 2014 it was the Royals. I'm pretty fatalistic about the factors that govern the distribution of pixie dust. The gods in control of it have not favored us in some time. But I'm perfectly ok with having a team that is just good enough to get a lottery ticket into the post-season. Even a wild card ticket is fine to me. It is worth noting that two wild card teams played in the WS this past season.
Keith Law thinks the Braves just committed highway robbery.
In dealing a trio of prospects for Evan Gattis, I really don't understand what the Astros are doing. The prospect depth they have in their system could allow them to acquire a player of a much higher caliber than Gattis, preferably a younger one as well, someone who's going to contribute to the next good Astros team in a few years. Atlanta, meanwhile, has gone from a bottom-five system in baseball to likely a top-10 system, overhauling their major-league roster while adding a broad mix of near- and long-term talent to their farm, in this case trading a player somewhere near the apex of his value for a very strong return.
Gattis is already 28 years old, coming back to pro ball late after several years of off-field problems, and he brings four years of control. In two not-quite-full major-league seasons, he's shown big power, poor defense, horrible on-base skills, and huge platoon splits -- killing lefties but posting a .241/.297/.469 line against right-handers with enormous problems against right-handed breaking stuff. While Houston's a good ballpark for dead-pull right-handed power hitters, he's virtually positionless and doesn't address the Astros' major needs for hitters who get on base or at least make more contact. He's also disappeared in the second half in both of his years in the majors -- whether due to physical wear and tear or inability to make in-season adjustments -- and his body isn't durable. He's probably a bench guy, or a platoon player, but not a full-time solution at any position. The Astros also pick up James Hoyt, a hard-throwing (93-97 mph) right-hander that Atlanta signed from an independent league for $500 after the 2012 season, a good bet to provide some value in middle relief right away.
In exchange for Gattis, Atlanta gets three prospects with question marks, but all of whom are legitimate major-league prospects with real asset value today. Mike Foltynewicz is the big get, and I would have traded Gattis for him alone. Folty is a high-beta prospect with the upside of a potential No. 1 starter if he can develop a more consistent arm slot and find an average third pitch to go along with an 80 fastball and 70 curveball. He drops down on the fastball at times and comes back up to get depth on the curveball, a trick that major-league hitters will exploit. His changeup will show plus, and ditching his slider (which he did early in 2014) may help him spend more time working on the change, but the change isn't good enough now to keep lefties from sitting on his four-seamer. Drafted in the first round in 2010, he's never seen the DL, and has the size and frame to be a durable 200-inning starter. His floor is a Nate Eovaldi type, and he'd be a wipeout reliever, but Atlanta has to develop him as a starter and hope the changeup comes along to the point where he can lead their rotation in 2017.
Third baseman Rio Ruiz has developed nicely as a hitter, showing outstanding patience -- his walk rate put him among the top 10% of minor-league hitters this year, even though he was just 20 in a high-A league. Lancaster is a tremendous place to hit, however, and his power output was a little light given his home environment. He has good natural feel to hit and much of his contact is hard, but his load is getting too deep with his weight too much on his back side, interfering with his timing and reducing his ability to drive the ball out. At third base, he has the hands and arm, but he lacks rhythm in his feet and the ball tends to play him unless he's coming in on it; he has a chance to play at third, although it's at least 50/50 that he moves to first. Unlike a lot of young left-handed hitters, he has no real problem facing lefties. He projects as something similar to what Matt Carpenter has become for the Cardinals -- a high-OBP doubles hitter, a little less glove, a little more pop -- if he can stay at the hot corner.
Andrew Thurman was a command right-hander when the Astros took him out of UC-Irvine in the second round in 2013, then started hitting 95-96 in spring training last year, only to head to the cold weather of the Midwest League and struggle with his control. He'll pitch with a 55 fastball and shows three potentially average or better secondary pitches, but nothing is plus and he has to throw strikes to succeed. I still like him as a potential fourth or fifth starter, but that assumes that he can harness his newfound velocity and stop walking guys. Of the three guys Atlanta got back in this trade, he has the lowest ceiling and the lowest probability, the latter due to his difficulty against low-A hitters last season.
There's a good chance Atlanta walks out of this deal with an above-average starting pitcher and an everyday third baseman, which would be a heck of a return for a flawed player like Gattis. The Astros get four years of control of Gattis, and if they choose to use him behind the plate on occasion, the acquisition might free them up to trade one of their many catchers ... but is this the kind of player the Astros should be trying to acquire right now? They're not contenders this year, probably not in 2016, and by 2017 Gattis will be turning 31 and past peak, which we've probably already seen. I have no objection to the Astros trading from their passel of prospects to add real major-league talent, but they should be aiming higher than an OBP sinkhole who doesn't add value on defense. Foltynewicz is well-regarded throughout the industry, and I think he could have headlined a package for a much better player, now or during the 2014 season.[/i]
Gattis is already 28 years old, coming back to pro ball late after several years of off-field problems, and he brings four years of control. In two not-quite-full major-league seasons, he's shown big power, poor defense, horrible on-base skills, and huge platoon splits -- killing lefties but posting a .241/.297/.469 line against right-handers with enormous problems against right-handed breaking stuff. While Houston's a good ballpark for dead-pull right-handed power hitters, he's virtually positionless and doesn't address the Astros' major needs for hitters who get on base or at least make more contact. He's also disappeared in the second half in both of his years in the majors -- whether due to physical wear and tear or inability to make in-season adjustments -- and his body isn't durable. He's probably a bench guy, or a platoon player, but not a full-time solution at any position. The Astros also pick up James Hoyt, a hard-throwing (93-97 mph) right-hander that Atlanta signed from an independent league for $500 after the 2012 season, a good bet to provide some value in middle relief right away.
In exchange for Gattis, Atlanta gets three prospects with question marks, but all of whom are legitimate major-league prospects with real asset value today. Mike Foltynewicz is the big get, and I would have traded Gattis for him alone. Folty is a high-beta prospect with the upside of a potential No. 1 starter if he can develop a more consistent arm slot and find an average third pitch to go along with an 80 fastball and 70 curveball. He drops down on the fastball at times and comes back up to get depth on the curveball, a trick that major-league hitters will exploit. His changeup will show plus, and ditching his slider (which he did early in 2014) may help him spend more time working on the change, but the change isn't good enough now to keep lefties from sitting on his four-seamer. Drafted in the first round in 2010, he's never seen the DL, and has the size and frame to be a durable 200-inning starter. His floor is a Nate Eovaldi type, and he'd be a wipeout reliever, but Atlanta has to develop him as a starter and hope the changeup comes along to the point where he can lead their rotation in 2017.
Third baseman Rio Ruiz has developed nicely as a hitter, showing outstanding patience -- his walk rate put him among the top 10% of minor-league hitters this year, even though he was just 20 in a high-A league. Lancaster is a tremendous place to hit, however, and his power output was a little light given his home environment. He has good natural feel to hit and much of his contact is hard, but his load is getting too deep with his weight too much on his back side, interfering with his timing and reducing his ability to drive the ball out. At third base, he has the hands and arm, but he lacks rhythm in his feet and the ball tends to play him unless he's coming in on it; he has a chance to play at third, although it's at least 50/50 that he moves to first. Unlike a lot of young left-handed hitters, he has no real problem facing lefties. He projects as something similar to what Matt Carpenter has become for the Cardinals -- a high-OBP doubles hitter, a little less glove, a little more pop -- if he can stay at the hot corner.
Andrew Thurman was a command right-hander when the Astros took him out of UC-Irvine in the second round in 2013, then started hitting 95-96 in spring training last year, only to head to the cold weather of the Midwest League and struggle with his control. He'll pitch with a 55 fastball and shows three potentially average or better secondary pitches, but nothing is plus and he has to throw strikes to succeed. I still like him as a potential fourth or fifth starter, but that assumes that he can harness his newfound velocity and stop walking guys. Of the three guys Atlanta got back in this trade, he has the lowest ceiling and the lowest probability, the latter due to his difficulty against low-A hitters last season.
There's a good chance Atlanta walks out of this deal with an above-average starting pitcher and an everyday third baseman, which would be a heck of a return for a flawed player like Gattis. The Astros get four years of control of Gattis, and if they choose to use him behind the plate on occasion, the acquisition might free them up to trade one of their many catchers ... but is this the kind of player the Astros should be trying to acquire right now? They're not contenders this year, probably not in 2016, and by 2017 Gattis will be turning 31 and past peak, which we've probably already seen. I have no objection to the Astros trading from their passel of prospects to add real major-league talent, but they should be aiming higher than an OBP sinkhole who doesn't add value on defense. Foltynewicz is well-regarded throughout the industry, and I think he could have headlined a package for a much better player, now or during the 2014 season.[/i]
This is total assumption on your part in a way to bash Wren. You realize Roy Clark go a promotion and went to work with Stan Kasten, who brought him up with the Braves, right?
Sure...coming back to the Braves less than a month after Wren was fired doesn't tell us anything.
Kasten is not with the Nats anymore. Clark was with the JS-Cox duo for many years. Loyalty and long time connections.
PurpleBrave
On BBA's Top 100 Prospects List
Gattis was one of my favorite players, and I hate to see him go, but we got a haul for him. Foltynewicz is at worst a closer/high profile set up man. Both he and Ruiz are considered top 10 prospects for the Astros who have a LOADED system.
People will believe what they want to believe.
Then why leave in the first place? He coul d have gotten the same role compensation here. Isnt Kasten with the Dodgers? Why not go there?
He did join the Dodgers front office last year.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
Just for the record (not that anyone cares about "The Official MadduxFanII Opinion"), I thought firing Wren was a mistake, but a reasonable and understandable one. I have a general philosophy that it's hard to get too worked up over a coach or executive getting fired if you think they're one year away from being justifiably fired. "What must be done eventually should be done immediately," in the words of my alma mater's athletic director. Canning Wren after one more disappointing season would have been fair, so it's difficult to say that firing him when we did was really too egregious*.
It's what happened after Wren was fired that bothers me. You fire Wren, then replace him with John Hart, who hasn't done anything impressive in about 15 years. You gleefully tear down Wren's works and erase all traces of him within the organization, including making a crummy baseball move and generally loathsome trade in dealing his son. It's like the ancient Egyptians erasing all images of a disgraced Pharaoh after he dies. You basically make it abundantly clear that you have no respect or regard for a guy who did rather laudable work for a number of years.
It's all kind of petulant and unpleasant and...icky.
*That said, look at the Giants' post-2004, pre-2010 records some time. It's a wonder Sabean was able to survive those years.
It's what happened after Wren was fired that bothers me. You fire Wren, then replace him with John Hart, who hasn't done anything impressive in about 15 years. You gleefully tear down Wren's works and erase all traces of him within the organization, including making a crummy baseball move and generally loathsome trade in dealing his son. It's like the ancient Egyptians erasing all images of a disgraced Pharaoh after he dies. You basically make it abundantly clear that you have no respect or regard for a guy who did rather laudable work for a number of years.
It's all kind of petulant and unpleasant and...icky.
*That said, look at the Giants' post-2004, pre-2010 records some time. It's a wonder Sabean was able to survive those years.
So why not stay there? What was the big event that happened where Clark all of sudden decided to come back to the Braves?
I think trading Kyle was more about giving him a fresh start with a new organization. Do you think it would have been easy for him to be here after his dad was just fired?
Hart is here to take the brunt of the blows from the fanbase so Coppy can take over in a year or two.
I doubt Wren was so much of a dick that he decided to leave the Dodgers who have all the money in the world to build a strong farm and do whatever they want to come back to the Braves. Could it be part of it? Sure. The Dodgers are a really good orginzation right now due to all that money. Going from that to a mid market team that's rebuilding? There is more there then just one guy possibily being an asshole.
MadduxFanII
Swallowed by Mark Bowman
If Kyle had asked to be traded, dealing him would have been the right thing to do. Based on all available reporting, that didn't happen, and Kyle's approach after his dad was fired was to keep working and playing as hard as possible.
The noble thing to do would have been to come out with a statement after Frank's firing that said, "We understand there will be some speculation about Kyle Wren's future as a result of this transition. To be completely clear: Kyle Wren is still a member in good standing of the organization. He has justified his place in the organization with his play on the field and his attitude off of it. He has done everything we have asked him to do and we have complete confidence he will continue to do so. Our evaluation of Kyle has not been and will not be affected by the decision we made with regards to his father. We will not tolerate any coach or player within the organization treating Kyle badly as a result of his relationship with Frank Wren. Like all prospects, there might come a time in Kyle's career when his name will arise in the natural course of discussions with other organizations. When that happens, we will make a decision based entirely on our evaluation of what's right for the Atlanta Braves, just as we would with any other player."
Your point about leaving a great situation like the Dodgers only strengthens my point.
Well two guys left (Wren and Manno). I'm sorry but I think its very fair to make the assumption that Clark left because of those two.
I don't think any organization would have made such a statement but I do think that if Kyle didn't ask to be traded then there was no reason to do so.
dak
Well-known member
Thanks for posting this. I've found Keith Law's assessments hit and miss over the years, but I agree with just about everything he said on this trade. Not sure what Astros are thinking.
Folty is a huge get. Law said that he would have traded Gattis for him straight up, and I tend to agree. I think the Braves did extremely well here -- as I mentioned earlier, would be really interested to learn what the Rangers were offering, too.
It's possible. Clark's strength was in the draft and sign system which no longer exists. Hopefully he can still get it done with the Braves budget issues.