I think situations like this are artificial improvement. Namely RBIs. Put Bonds in front of someone and they are going to get a ton of ABs with someone on base. More RBIs. Protection works!
Hello, Atlanta
- Thread starter clvclv
- Start date
I think situations like this are artificial improvement. Namely RBIs. Put Bonds in front of someone and they are going to get a ton of ABs with someone on base. More RBIs. Protection works!
msstate7
Well-known member
But I might give FF more fastballs instead of throwing junk off the plate or in the dirt
I wouldn't give the better hitter better pitches to hit.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
I have held off posting about this so I could think about it first. And I still can't settle on a definitive position because I think it depends on the thought process of the GM and others as to WHY they brought Kemp in.
If JC brought Kemp in because he truly believes that he is part of a long term solution, then I hate the trade because it becomes one more example to me of the short sighted views being taken right now.
If JC brought Kemp back as part of the price to get rid of Olivera, then view kemp as a placeholder in LF until he can either be moved or replaced by a better player and keep JC from having to spend money this winter to bring in a FA from a bad FA class to be a similar placeholder, then I am OK with it. If this is the view, then I see it like I saw Gattis, a guy who can't play a lick of defense but who has some thunder in his bat and could be a fit for some AL team as a DH. Could the Braves pay down what Kemp is owed into the neighborhood of what Gattis was projected to get through his arby years and then move him for what they got for Gattis (or something similar)? If so, and they do the move, then it will be a good trade.
If JC brought Kemp in because he truly believes that he is part of a long term solution, then I hate the trade because it becomes one more example to me of the short sighted views being taken right now.
If JC brought Kemp back as part of the price to get rid of Olivera, then view kemp as a placeholder in LF until he can either be moved or replaced by a better player and keep JC from having to spend money this winter to bring in a FA from a bad FA class to be a similar placeholder, then I am OK with it. If this is the view, then I see it like I saw Gattis, a guy who can't play a lick of defense but who has some thunder in his bat and could be a fit for some AL team as a DH. Could the Braves pay down what Kemp is owed into the neighborhood of what Gattis was projected to get through his arby years and then move him for what they got for Gattis (or something similar)? If so, and they do the move, then it will be a good trade.
They should have just DFA'd Olivera and got an actual good player for LF this offseason, even if it cost more resources than Kemp did.
I am against trading for Kemp and keeping Teheran. They either needed to acquire above average players for LF, 3B, C and a MOR starter, or trade Teheran and continue the rebuild. Acquiring Kemp, who is a below average player in LF, means the first option is no longer possible. Kemp (and his 1 WAR per season) in LF is almost certainly not good enough to make the Braves a fringe WC contender in 2017, so the Braves have wasted yet another year of Teheran's valuable contract.
I am against this ridiculous spin put on by the FO that this trade is somehow going to make the team better, when it is clearly nothing more than a move designed to make stupid fans think the Braves are trying to win. They are trying to straddle the compete/rebuild line in an effort to sell tickets to a new ballpark, and the future competitiveness of the franchise is going to suffer because of it.
I am against all these awful MLB-level moves the FO has made, and then they have the audacity to come out and say "we will not have a repeat of next year", or, "we plan to finish strong this year". How about manning up and owning the fact that you are putting a ****ty product on the field? How about explaining how they are going to fix the process of building the roster rather than just saying, "Aw shucks, we really want to win too, it sucks to lose"?
Kemp could very well rebound offensively and go back to being an 800+ OPS guy, but he is going to be so bad defensively it won't matter. Mitigating Kemp's poor defense by sticking Inciarte and Mallex in the OF hurts the team because now they have to play 2 offensively challenged CFers in CF and RF to mitigate Kemp's defense, which in turn mitigates Kemp's offensive contributions.
Kemp is not going to be good in 2017, and probably not ever. The Braves are not going to be good 2017, and now have a not-good Kemp locked in for 3 years. I don't think anyone is out of line if they are upset about the direction the FO is taking in their efforts to "improve" the team.
But by all means, let's all hold hands and sing around the campfire while we read about how happy Kemp is to be in Atlanta. Swallowed the FO bull****...hook, line and sinker. And then be sure to brow beat anyone who criticizes the moves made by the FO.
How could it be part of the price to get rid of Olivera? The price to get rid of him was to simply DFA him. The Braves did NOT have to take on another bad player owed even more money to rid themselves of Olivera. Kemp is added cost on top of getting rid of Olivera.
Kemp was acquired for 1 of 2 reasons:
1. The FO needs to make it look like they are trying to win.
2. The FO actually thinks Kemp is good.
Neither option bodes well for the rebuild effort.
Actually they just have to think Kemp is around a 1 WAR player to be worth the added salary. And that is certainly not the definition of a good player.
Horsehide Harry
<B>Mr. Free Trade</B>
If they were thinking in terms of a combination of moves, ie. move Olivera, get Kemp, pay some of Kemp's money to make him attractive as a DH, move him for a return similar to what Gattis brought back, then it may turn out to be a good deal.
In any case, DFA of Olivera and pay him his money to go away, or trading him as part of a Kemp deal, money is being spent. If you can turn that money into future talent that will help down the road then at least the money wasn't a complete sunk cost, it might just turn into Ruiz, Thurman and Folty. Even assuming only Folty pans out, his theoretical 6 years of control are likely worth the difference in the money they have to send with Kemp.
That sound confusing so in a different way, forget Olivera, doesn't matter.
The Braves take on Kemp at an average value of $18M per year. If they agree to pay $13M per year as part of a deal that sends him to an AL club for a return similar to what the Braves got for Gattis, then it's likely the Braves at least get a value wash simply by having control over the theoretical Folty equivalent and could potentially recognize a net gain in the theoretical Ruiz/Thurman equivalent pan out better than the real duo has.
Yes, if you want a team of 1 WAR players. If that's their plan they are executing it flawlessly.
If the Braves want to be good enough in 2017 to warrant holding onto Teheran they need to acquire 2-3 WAR players, not 1 WAR players.
Those players are very expensive on the open market and cost draft picks. Or a lot future pieces if you did it via trade. And I don't think they plan to compete in 2017 and that has nothing to do with holding onto Teheran. He holds more value to cost conscious teams and those trades are generally made in the offseason which is where a trade will be made if the price is right. I don't see the point in trading JT right now if teams aren't offering a reasonable deal. There is no need to sell him short right now.
I see your point in maybe flipping Kemp in the future for more value. The Kemp trade by itself isn't what I have issue with.
My issue is holding onto Teheran, which is a "win now" move, while acquiring Kemp. In order to justify holding Teheran, the Braves need to add seferal 2-3 WAR layers, and one of the places such a player could be added was LF. That obviously can't happen now that a 1 WAR player is there.
I keep saying this over and over...the Braves either need to acquire above average guys (Kemp is not above average) for LF, 3B, C and a MOR starter and go for a WC spot next year, or they need to trade Teheran. Trying to straddle the compete/rebuild line is the worst possible scenario, and it's exactly what they are doing. They are wasting the value of arguably the most valuable asset in the organization with their current strategy.
I hope you're right. However, I think a general rule of thumb should be: "If the market becomes so insanely favorable to sellers that the Yankees start selling, you need to also start selling". I can't remember the Yankees ever being sellers, yet the market was so insane even they sold. Yet the Braves, who are in the middle of a 100+ loss season and a rebuild, didn't think it was wise to sell.
I have a bad feeling they really think Kemp is a part of the solution for 2017, as is keeping Teheran. They also think keeping JJ and "finishing strong" is important.
You could be right. But I think the finishing strong deal is just PR. Realistically JT is the only player the Braves had that would bring back any value after Viz got hurt. If he wasn't hurt I have no doubt he would of been traded as well. Just because it was an insane sellers market doesn't mean much when the Braves had 1 piece to sell. Again his selling point is the value of his contract. To me that has little value to a team like Texas or Boston who want the value to be ace ability.
Yes they did - they've been selling ALL YEAR with Grilli, with Harrell, with Alvarez --- you really think the Braves got an offer they loved for Jim Johnson and said, meh -- we aren't sellers this deadline? As for Teheran, I have been in favor of moving him all year because I don't think his value gets higher and I don't think we are going to win next year --- but that doesn't mean you accept a substandard deal for him.
Now NOBODY knows what was offered for JT -- but I'm going to assume there were no Moncada's or Bregman's on the table. You don't trade a guy just to trade him.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I understand that WAR is probably the best measure we fans have in measuring a players value, but I find it silly when we argue the difference between a 1 WAR player versus a 2-3 WAR player. WAR itself explains there maybe a 1 WAR variance in actual value meaning a 1 WAR player could have been just as valuable as 3 WAR player.
Or in simpler terms, we are valuing these players with relatively crude means. I'm sure Coppy knows what Kemp's WAR is and he still made the trade and I'm sure he has his reasons.
Or in simpler terms, we are valuing these players with relatively crude means. I'm sure Coppy knows what Kemp's WAR is and he still made the trade and I'm sure he has his reasons.
yeezus
It's OVER 5,000!
yes but he's an idiot and his reasons are stupid
The only way a 1 WAR player could really be a 3 WAR player is on the defensive side of the ball where I believe we have a good understanding of that value but it's still not perfect. Offensively we are pretty spot on and have been for awhile. With that being said we can be overpaying Kemp in terms of $$ and it still not be a bad deal because that's all the Braves are 'wasting'. And it's not like the money would carry. To me if Kemp is really worth 5-6 million a year and we are effectively paying him 8.6 a year is it really that big of a deal? In years where we aren't likely to contend. In years where we aren't at max payroll.
It's not like the Glavine situation when we brought him back and we are bringing in meh players and losing a draft pick as well.
chop2chip
Well-known member
I was thinking more along the lines of a 1 WAR player actually being a 2 WAR player and the 3 WAR player actually being a 2 WAR player, thereby the 1 WAR player actually being equal in value to a 3 WAR player. It's more to illustrate that WAR, at its very core, is simply an approximation and one that's likely harshest on the Kemp's, Bruce's, Trumbo's, etc. of the world (and inversely, likely too far kind on the Inciarte's).
chop2chip
Well-known member
Are we though? I'm not entirely sure we have reach a consensus on the value of a strikeout vs. groundball outs vs. pop ups, etc. in terms of our WAR calculations.
Like I said, WAR is great, but I would be stunned if a single front office in baseball used it as their basis of assessing value.
KB21
Where's My Cup of Coffee?
If there is one, then I'll show you a front office that isn't doing their job.