Hypothetically speaking...

[nsacpi]

We can afford to go after a Cespedes or Desmond. But from a risk return perspective I don't think it would be wise. I would spread about 40M over a catcher, a third baseman, a proven reliever who can pitch the 7th or 8th for us, and a couple solid bench players who can serve as placeholders if we keep some of our prospects down for service time considerations. I would hold at least 10M in reserve for late spring training and mid-season moves. We'll have a respectable team next year without making moves that will significantly impinge on our future financial flexibility. It is important to preserve this flexibility because we should try to extent pretty much every young player who comes up and establishes himself in the big leagues. The contracts we signed with Teheran and Simmons should be the templates we operate from.

 

[Hudson2]

I agree nsacpi, Swanson and Albies would be the first 2. I'd wait till the big free agents are available in 2018. By then we should have a better feeling of what we need.

 

[auyushu]

I agree nsacpi, Swanson and Albies would be the first 2. I'd wait till the big free agents are available in 2018. By then we should have a better feeling of what we need.

Given we have absolutely nothing in the way of OF, C, or 3B prospects that will be ready in the next 2-3 seasons I think it's pretty safe to say what we will be needing right now, at the beginning of 2017, or 2018. I'm fine with punting another season and waiting till 2018 to go after FA, but I think our needs will be the same either way.

 

[nsacpi]

Given we have absolutely nothing in the way of OF, C, or 3B prospects that will be ready in the next 2-3 seasons I think it's pretty safe to say what we will be needing right now, at the beginning of 2017, or 2018. I'm fine with punting another season and waiting till 2018 to go after FA, but I think our needs will be the same either way.

Ruiz and Dustin Peterson have some promise.

 

[mfree80]

Given we have absolutely nothing in the way of OF, C, or 3B prospects that will be ready in the next 2-3 seasons I think it's pretty safe to say what we will be needing right now, at the beginning of 2017, or 2018. I'm fine with punting another season and waiting till 2018 to go after FA, but I think our needs will be the same either way.

As others have said. I doubt the Braves want to be punting the year they move into a new stadium. Under normal circumstances you would not be wrong, but the stadium complicates the timeline a bit.

 

[NinersSBChamps]

I would say a new player at SS, 2B, 3B, C and LF, plus an arm for the BP is about as close to a roster overhaul as a team can realistically do in a single offseason. And that's exactly what everyone is proposing.

Do you even read the threads before you reply?

A new player doesn't mean anything. The way the front office handles things there is nothing, but disappointments to look forward to.

 

[auyushu]

Ruiz and Dustin Peterson have some promise.

As starters on a team that is well stocked offensively they could be useful pieces, sure. Every team can use those cheap slightly above average players. But if we are adding those two as starters our offense is going to royally suck considering our complete lack of power. Neither of those guys is likely to turn into 3+ WAR bats, which is what we need at 3B and LF to give us a decent offense. But those two are extremely iffy to even be major league regulars, much less be impact bats.

 

[auyushu]

As others have said. I doubt the Braves want to be punting the year they move into a new stadium. Under normal circumstances you would not be wrong, but the stadium complicates the timeline a bit.

Oh I agree with you there. I think it's pretty dumb, but it's going to be happening. They've already shown that this will be happening based on how they've been moving players in the minors this year. I fully expect Albies and Swanson to be our starting 2B and SS at the beginning of next year regardless of whether they show they are ready.

As such, I hope we seriously pursue guys like Cespedes and Desmond so we can actually have a chance at an offense with a pulse. If we make a bunch of Markakis type deals (or sign someone like Weiters) I'm going to be a sad panda.

 

[Julio3000]

Next year is going to be a test for the FO's acumen and, more importantly, their focus. Do we stick with the plan, which is much more geared towards '18 and beyond, or do we try to stitch together a "competitive" team full of "palatable" veterans to play in Cobb County? Is it possible that if the young arms continue to progress, that we move some for some cost-controlled positional talent?

 

[bravesfanforlife88]

Next year is going to be a test for the FO's acumen and, more importantly, their focus. Do we stick with the plan, which is much more geared towards '18 and beyond, or do we try to stitch together a "competitive" team full of "palatable" veterans to play in Cobb County? Is it possible that if the young arms continue to progress, that we move some for some cost-controlled positional talent?

I think you can accomplish both this offseason. There's no secret we have the cash available, we have a deep system, and are poised for a big international signing period. With all of that together, if we could sign a Ramos and/or Cespedes that puts us in a nice spot. You wouldn't have to go overboard spending all of that pitching talent on trades. Let the guys develop in 2017 and be ready to kick ass in 2018

 

[nsacpi]

With Cespedes and Desmond it is the length of the contract that will carry the risk. I'm guessing both will want and get deals that are at least 5 years. I also think losing a high second round pick is a significant consideration for an organization that is above average when it comes to drafting and developing.

 

[CJ9]

With Cespedes and Desmond it is the length of the contract that will carry the risk. I'm guessing both will want and get deals that are at least 5 years. I also think losing a high second round pick is a significant consideration for an organization that is above average when it comes to drafting and developing.

Agree, this is not the offseason we need to be signing guys with draft picks attached, especially since it would mean forfeiting one in the high second round. We saw how much talent fell to that area this year, can't afford to miss out on a difference making prospect to sign someone on the wrong side of 30.

 

[praeceps93]

A new player doesn't mean anything. The way the front office handles things there is nothing, but disappointments to look forward to.

Booooooooo

 

[Enscheff]

Agree, this is not the offseason we need to be signing guys with draft picks attached, especially since it would mean forfeiting one in the high second round. We saw how much talent fell to that area this year, can't afford to miss out on a difference making prospect to sign someone on the wrong side of 30.

How many times does it need to be stated that the draft pick penalty is probably going away for signing a FA in the next CBA? It is probably the thing the MLBPA hates the most as it is dramatically reducing salaries for mid-range FAs.

 

[nsacpi]

How many times does it need to be stated that the draft pick penalty is probably going away for signing a FA in the next CBA? It is probably the thing the MLBPA hates the most as it is dramatically reducing salaries for mid-range FAs.

It could be that some of us don't agree with your assessment on this matter.

 

[CJ9]

How many times does it need to be stated that the draft pick penalty is probably going away for signing a FA in the next CBA? It is probably the thing the MLBPA hates the most as it is dramatically reducing salaries for mid-range FAs.

Cool. When that actually changes and isn't just a message board conversation, then I'll change the way I feel about it.

 

[Enscheff]

Cool. When that actually changes and isn't just a message board conversation, then I'll change the way I feel about it.

Message board conversation? It is discussed everywhere. Dave Cameron over at FG just mentioned it yesterday:

12:56
Bork: Any ideas how the QO could change? There needs to be some kind of solution. The last system (A. B.) was terrible and the QO system is hated by the union.
12:57
Dave Cameron: The players want it to just go away entirely. If they make enough other concessions, I think that could happen. If they end up keeping the system in some form, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned into a multi-year offer, instead of a one year.

This is not something made up on fan forums like silly trade proposals. The QO is going to be overhauled, and removing the loss of a draft pick is the main thing the union hates.

 

[CJ9]

Message board conversation? It is discussed everywhere. Dave Cameron over at FG just mentioned it yesterday:

12:56
Bork: Any ideas how the QO could change? There needs to be some kind of solution. The last system (A. B.) was terrible and the QO system is hated by the union.
12:57
Dave Cameron: The players want it to just go away entirely. If they make enough other concessions, I think that could happen. If they end up keeping the system in some form, I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned into a multi-year offer, instead of a one year.

This is not something made up on fan forums like silly trade proposals. The QO is going to be overhauled, and removing the loss of a draft pick is the main thing the union hates.

I get that, hopefully the QO goes away. And like I already posted -- when the change is made, I'll change the way I feel about it.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but what's the point of talking about it right now as a done deal when there's no serious reports that the change will definitely be made this offseason?

 

[bravos4evr]

I get that, hopefully the QO goes away. And like I already posted -- when the change is made, I'll change the way I feel about it.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but what's the point of talking about it right now as a done deal when there's no serious reports that the change will definitely be made this offseason?

IDK how you would define "serious" but every major baseball writer has mentioned that the QO would be one of the main focuses of the new CBA, they want to find a way to compensate teams who lose free agents without over punishing teams that sign them (nor the players being signed due to draft compensation) I suspect it will entail either multi year offers, no loss for signing players but additions in draft picks for losing them and/or a combo of the two.

 

[nsacpi]

IDK how you would define "serious" but every major baseball writer has mentioned that the QO would be one of the main focuses of the new CBA, they want to find a way to compensate teams who lose free agents without over punishing teams that sign them (nor the players being signed due to draft compensation) I suspect it will entail either multi year offers, no loss for signing players but additions in draft picks for losing them and/or a combo of the two.

The owners like it. Manfred defended it pretty strongly in a recent interview. We shall see. I doubt the whole QO concept gets jettisoned. My prediction is we see an incremental adjustment in the formula that determines what a player receiving a QO gets paid. Similar to the small adjustment made to the Super 2 cutoff in the last round.