Is it within realm to get Sale?

Prior to this year Gray has been a little like our boy Julio in that he's pitched above his peripheals. Still he was a mid 3 FIP and 3+ fWAR pitcher. This year not so much. If the Braves could buy low on him then I would be all over it. He will be arb1 in 2017 though so that is something to keep in mind.
 
goldfly said:
it always seems the people where that say "that talent would never get so and so"

9.5 times out of 10 is more than what the team usually gets for said player

just saying
Click to expand...

I agree. No doubt Sale would cost a lot. But I don't think it will cost near as much as what some people assume.
 
bravesguy said:
The whitesox do have a problem with Sale's attitude, could we strike?

Mallex (they need a CF), Wisler, Cabreara, Ellis... seems like a combination of extreme talent (Mallex, Cabreara) and potential (Wisler, Ellis).

We could then sign Colon and have a staff of Sale, Teheran, Folty, Colon, Best of prospects.
Click to expand...

Speed only CF, two fringe MLB starters, a closer prospect. Doesn't seem like enough.

If Atlanta can trade its chaff for an elite starter I'll again give Coppy a ton of credit, but doesn't seem likely.
 
Carp said:
I agree. No doubt Sale would cost a lot. But I don't think it will cost near as much as what some people assume.
Click to expand...

I mean, Sale is arguably better than Hamels, is definitely younger and much cheaper, and has just 1 fewer year of control than Hamels did at this point last year. And even in a deal considered an underpay by many, the Rangers gave up several quality prospects. Guys like Ellis and even Mallex to an extent have virtually no value in a few for Sale. It would cost a heck of a lot.
 
Would anyone here trade Julio for Mallex, Wisler Cabrera and Ellis? No, and Sale is worth significantly more than Julio.

So start with a Julio-level package (Swanson or Albies plus one of the elite arms in Rome), then add another top 100 talent (the Braves have 7 of them) to that package to get Sale. Sale is not coming to Atlanta for guys like Ellis, Wisler and Cabrera, no matter how many of them you try to bundle together. The ChiSox will want 3 premium guys at a minimum for him.
 
Enscheff said:
Would anyone here trade Julio for Mallex, Wisler Cabrera and Ellis? No, and Sale is worth significantly more than Julio.

So start with a Julio-level package (Swanson or Albies plus one of the elite arms in Rome), then add another top 100 talent (the Braves have 7 of them) to that package to get Sale. Sale is not coming to Atlanta for guys like Ellis, Wisler and Cabrera, no matter how many of them you try to bundle together. The ChiSox will want 3 premium guys at a minimum for him.
Click to expand...

I think it would probably be something like:

Wisler: ML arm to slot in Sales place. Still has some untapped potential.
Albies: Top 20 prospect necessary for a deal like this. (13 MLB)
Newcomb: (47 MLB)
Soroka: Top 100 Arm. (91 MLB)

And I'm not sure THAT gets it done. The ChiSox aren't going to deal exclusively with the Braves.

What if the Red Sox offered Benitendi, Devers, Kopech and Trey Ball? Moncada and Devers are likely slated for the same position (3B), Benny is behind at least two All Star OF, Kopech is a while away and Ball is a former 1,7 who is taking a while.

What if the Dodgers offered Puig, Bellinger, De Leon and Willie Calhoun?
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I think it would probably be something like:

Wisler: ML arm to slot in Sales place. Still has some untapped potential.
Albies: Top 20 prospect necessary for a deal like this. (13 MLB)
Newcomb: (47 MLB)
Soroka: Top 100 Arm. (91 MLB)

And I'm not sure THAT gets it done. The ChiSox aren't going to deal exclusively with the Braves.

What if the Red Sox offered Benitendi, Devers, Kopech and Trey Ball? Moncada and Devers are likely slated for the same position (3B), Benny is behind at least two All Star OF, Kopech is a while away and Ball is a former 1,7 who is taking a while.

What if the Dodgers offered Puig, Bellinger, De Leon and Willie Calhoun?
Click to expand...

The point is, and always has been: The Braves aren't getting Chris Sale.

Just like they weren't getting Price or Greinke or Lester. They quite simply don't have the resources (in talent or money) required to tie up so much into the acquisition of a single pitcher.

Their plan is to draft and develop the next Chris Sale, not to pay market price for the current version of him.

Again, the Braves are looking to add a couple stable pieces to the middle of the rotation, not blow their load rebuilding the top of the rotation. Anyone that proposes deals like Sale or Quintana or Archer (well maybe Archer has an outside chance of happening) really hasn't been paying attention to what the Braves have been doing, and will be in for a huge let down when the Braves acquire Shields and De La Rosa (or equivalent).
 
Enscheff said:
The point is, and always has been: The Braves aren't getting Chris Sale.

Just like they weren't getting Price or Greinke or Lester. They quite simply don't have the resources (in talent or money) required to tie up so much into the acquisition of a single pitcher.

Their plan is to draft and develop the next Chris Sale, not to pay market price for the current version of him.

Again, the Braves are looking to add a couple stable pieces to the middle of the rotation, not blow their load rebuilding the top of the rotation. Anyone that proposes deals like Sale or Quintana or Archer (well maybe Archer has an outside chance of happening) really hasn't been paying attention to what the Braves have been doing, and will be in for a huge let down when the Braves acquire Shields and De La Rosa (or equivalent).
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. However, I do understand where some of the others are coming from because of the mixed message the FO has been sending, the whole reload, not rebuild, the "be competitive in 2017" stuff.

I stated about this time LAST year that the Braves should go hard after Greinke OR Price if they intended to reload since it was clear then that the team lacked a true #1 and there wouldn't be one available anytime soon. Those guys were available for money AND the Braves #2 pick. Now, I admit that, while expecting those guys to get huge contracts, I didn't expect them to get the INSANE contracts they got.

Barring signing Greinke or Price they should have at least gone hard after one of the Zimmerman, Shark, Cueto crowd IF they intended to reload and compete in 2017 (the money was there). But they didn't do that. Which tells me one of two things are really going on: 1. They don't really intend to contend in 2017 unless it just occurs by happy circumstance. They have to say they are and build the illusion of the dog and pony show to try to placate the masses and put fans in the seats. But it was never the plan. or 2. They have no long term vision and are working in a reactive way with the rebuild (one plan today, different tomorrow, different the day after and not in incremental ways but philosophical) instead of proactive (develop a long term strategy and make moves to develop that strategy to its conclusion leaving enough flexibility in the plan to make incremental changes as necessary).

Trading for Sale would be a complete 180 move from what a rebuild is and should be.
 
smootness said:
How would Sale's contract lessen his value? His contract actually adds to his value; he's very cheap, relatively speaking.

And how is Mallex, Flowers, Wisler, Simmons, and Hursh in any way comparable to that Astros' package?
Click to expand...

You're right. I meant to mention that as a starting point. I am afraid Riley would and should be considered, especially if we could pull off a deal for Frazier.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. However, I do understand where some of the others are coming from because of the mixed message the FO has been sending, the whole reload, not rebuild, the "be competitive in 2017" stuff.

I stated about this time LAST year that the Braves should go hard after Greinke OR Price if they intended to reload since it was clear then that the team lacked a true #1 and there wouldn't be one available anytime soon. Those guys were available for money AND the Braves #2 pick. Now, I admit that, while expecting those guys to get huge contracts, I didn't expect them to get the INSANE contracts they got.

Barring signing Greinke or Price they should have at least gone hard after one of the Zimmerman, Shark, Cueto crowd IF they intended to reload and compete in 2017 (the money was there). But they didn't do that. Which tells me one of two things are really going on: 1. They don't really intend to contend in 2017 unless it just occurs by happy circumstance. They have to say they are and build the illusion of the dog and pony show to try to placate the masses and put fans in the seats. But it was never the plan. or 2. They have no long term vision and are working in a reactive way with the rebuild (one plan today, different tomorrow, different the day after and not in incremental ways but philosophical) instead of proactive (develop a long term strategy and make moves to develop that strategy to its conclusion leaving enough flexibility in the plan to make incremental changes as necessary).

Trading for Sale would be a complete 180 move from what a rebuild is and should be.
Click to expand...

I think #1 is what happened, but not on purpose. They didn't feel the need to spend big on pitchers last offseason because they truly thought (as was reasonable) the 2017 rotation would consist of Teheran, Wisler, Folty, Newcomb, Blair and whichever other young pitchers earned a shot. With those guys heading the rotation on the cheap, the Braves could have afforded to sign some impact guys like Ces, or trade for someone like McCutchen or Longoria.

When Blair, Newcomb and Wisler failed to progress, and Folty only progressed slightly, the plan had to change. Instead of "going for it" in 2017, they have to make measured improvements that don't hamper the team from competing in 2018 and beyond, yet made it look like they were "trying". Kemp was such a deal. Mac and Shields would be such deals. As would signing Castro, De La Rosa or a non-QO guy for 3B on a 2-3 year deal.

I don't think the plan ever was or will be to tie up big resources into a single starting pitcher. The Braves will never commit the prospct assets to trade for a guy like Sale, nor will they ever commit the cash to sign a guy like Price, or even Cueto. They will, and should, look to bring in young guns from within the system, trade them away at peak value, and then bring up the next guy in line. They have set themselves up to do exactly that, and they should only sign a FA starter to a 1-2 year deal in the event they need to fill in a gap due to injury or lack of prospect progression.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I don't disagree with what you are saying at all. However, I do understand where some of the others are coming from because of the mixed message the FO has been sending, the whole reload, not rebuild, the "be competitive in 2017" stuff.

I stated about this time LAST year that the Braves should go hard after Greinke OR Price if they intended to reload since it was clear then that the team lacked a true #1 and there wouldn't be one available anytime soon. Those guys were available for money AND the Braves #2 pick. Now, I admit that, while expecting those guys to get huge contracts, I didn't expect them to get the INSANE contracts they got.

Barring signing Greinke or Price they should have at least gone hard after one of the Zimmerman, Shark, Cueto crowd IF they intended to reload and compete in 2017 (the money was there). But they didn't do that. Which tells me one of two things are really going on: 1. They don't really intend to contend in 2017 unless it just occurs by happy circumstance. They have to say they are and build the illusion of the dog and pony show to try to placate the masses and put fans in the seats. But it was never the plan. or 2. They have no long term vision and are working in a reactive way with the rebuild (one plan today, different tomorrow, different the day after and not in incremental ways but philosophical) instead of proactive (develop a long term strategy and make moves to develop that strategy to its conclusion leaving enough flexibility in the plan to make incremental changes as necessary).

Trading for Sale would be a complete 180 move from what a rebuild is and should be.
Click to expand...

We just talked about this a few days ago. Again, let's think back to the '86-'91 rebuild. What were some of the misteps, which could have accelerated the process?

* Holding out on Dale Murphy too long.
* Trading Zane Smith or at least not getting maximum return
* Rejecting offers to sign Andre Dawson and Tim Raines
* Letting Bob Horner walk

No we're aware of some of the other blunders, but there was a deliberate tanking strategy back then, only it wasn't called that at the time. The "reloading" took place with the teams fielded around after Glavine fled for the Mets. That approach was employed every season since until Wren was removed.

If they go for a TOR starter, it should signal that they intend for the rebuild to be "over." Yes, we all understand that there is even more impressive pitching talent at the lower levels. Then, there is the big BUT...the new park opens and there HAS to be a competitive team fielded. 2 million aren't going to show, just simply to enjoy some new digs and have improved access to better eats and wider selection of craft brew.

The rotation IS going to need veteran leadership and a true #1. That is not news. A #3 is likely their next target. Obviously they're looking at catcher (McCann homecoming or some Plan B) and maybe a stopgap solution at 3B. From a PR perspective, they went into rebuild mode AFTER it was clear. So now they have to take step to be competitive for 2017. It's been proven that a rebuild shouldn't have to take a half decade now. The Marlins went from expansion club to World Champions over that same length of time. Then they did again after a fire sale. Obviously, we don't want mortgage the future but some of the talent in the system will be dangled for other other assets.
 
Knucksie said:
We just talked about this a few days ago. Again, let's think back to the '86-'91 rebuild. What were some of the misteps, which could have accelerated the process?

* Holding out on Dale Murphy too long.

True but worse. They not only held onto Murphy too long but lost the trade when they did trade him. The throw in of Tommy Greene, who turned into a better player (though short timed) than all the players who came back to the Braves combined, insured that.

* Trading Zane Smith or at least not getting maximum return.

In the Braves defense Zane Smith was a late bloomer. When he was traded to Montreal his best ERA to that point was 3.9 in his rookie year and for the Braves he was never again below 4. He also didn't K many. With my eyes today, I would say he was a poor #3 or decent #4. I think the fault came from wanting quantity over quality and close to the majors over farther away talent.

* Rejecting offers to sign Andre Dawson and Tim Raines

Agree. But they did sign Nick Esasky which blew up on them.

* Letting Bob Horner walk

I don't understand what your saying here. Horner was injured and never really came back. He was with the Braves through his 28YO season, missed all of age 29, and had an extended cup of coffee with the Cards at 30 before being done.

No we're aware of some of the other blunders, but there was a deliberate tanking strategy back then, only it wasn't called that at the time. The "reloading" took place with the teams fielded around after Glavine fled for the Mets. That approach was employed every season since until Wren was removed.

I think the reloading strategy has a diminishing return aspect where each reload, even if everything goes right, is a little less successful and spends a little more of the future in currency of prospects and diminished talent acquisition position in terms of Draft and waiver claims, etc. I think the Wren years were the tail end of a number of diminishing reload returns where reload trades for guys like Drew and Tex mortgaged the future in pursuit of one more ring.

If they go for a TOR starter, it should signal that they intend for the rebuild to be "over." Yes, we all understand that there is even more impressive pitching talent at the lower levels. Then, there is the big BUT...the new park opens and there HAS to be a competitive team fielded. 2 million aren't going to show, just simply to enjoy some new digs and have improved access to better eats and wider selection of craft brew.

I think having an ongoing understanding of talent availability is part of a FO job. IF they were set on contending or the marketing appearance of contending for 2017 then they should have looked at the likely availability of pitching after the 2016 and made the conscious decision to add a durable if not ACE starter through FA after 2015 IMO.

The rotation IS going to need veteran leadership and a true #1. That is not news. A #3 is likely their next target. Obviously they're looking at catcher (McCann homecoming or some Plan B) and maybe a stopgap solution at 3B. From a PR perspective, they went into rebuild mode AFTER it was clear. So now they have to take step to be competitive for 2017. It's been proven that a rebuild shouldn't have to take a half decade now. The Marlins went from expansion club to World Champions over that same length of time. Then they did again after a fire sale. Obviously, we don't want mortgage the future but some of the talent in the system will be dangled for other other assets.

I don't disagree. But I think they are trying to walk a very fine line where they do enough to build the appearance of competing in 2017 and maybe even the reality of contending without mortgaging the future and the fruits of the rebuild. The thing is, if they spend all offseason touting a competitive team in 2017 and then have a horrible April it will have all been for nothing except for those few who decide to buy season tickets based on the idea that progress from this year and additions in the offseason will make the purchase worth it.
Click to expand...

Timing for a rebuild is vitally important and the Braves have bad timing for theirs: new stadium, falling revenues, falling ownership investment on a present value basis, bad contracts (now gone but tied to other talent that didn't allow for max trade value like Kimbrel), poor FA classes after 2016 an to an extent 2017, no obvious generational talent in the draft (a Griffey or AROD) and untimely injury for some players: Minor, Grilly, etc.

A team like the Chicago White Sox, should they decide for a true rebuild, is in an ideal position to maximize the process.
 
Enscheff said:
I think #1 is what happened, but not on purpose. They didn't feel the need to spend big on pitchers last offseason because they truly thought (as was reasonable) the 2017 rotation would consist of Teheran, Wisler, Folty, Newcomb, Blair and whichever other young pitchers earned a shot. With those guys heading the rotation on the cheap, the Braves could have afforded to sign some impact guys like Ces, or trade for someone like McCutchen or Longoria.

When Blair, Newcomb and Wisler failed to progress, and Folty only progressed slightly, the plan had to change. Instead of "going for it" in 2017, they have to make measured improvements that don't hamper the team from competing in 2018 and beyond, yet made it look like they were "trying". Kemp was such a deal. Mac and Shields would be such deals. As would signing Castro, De La Rosa or a non-QO guy for 3B on a 2-3 year deal.

I don't think the plan ever was or will be to tie up big resources into a single starting pitcher. The Braves will never commit the prospct assets to trade for a guy like Sale, nor will they ever commit the cash to sign a guy like Price, or even Cueto. They will, and should, look to bring in young guns from within the system, trade them away at peak value, and then bring up the next guy in line. They have set themselves up to do exactly that, and they should only sign a FA starter to a 1-2 year deal in the event they need to fill in a gap due to injury or lack of prospect progression.
Click to expand...

Garcia wRC+ of 114 second have 250 at bats
 
Enscheff said:
I have no idea how this statement relates to anything I wrote. You may as well have just wrote "blue door knob".
Click to expand...

91640d7a377cc274ca5781320a34303d.jpg


This thread is confusing me.
 
bravesguy said:
The whitesox do have a problem with Sale's attitude, could we strike?

Mallex (they need a CF), Wisler, Cabreara, Ellis... seems like a combination of extreme talent (Mallex, Cabreara) and potential (Wisler, Ellis).

We could then sign Colon and have a staff of Sale, Teheran, Folty, Colon, Best of prospects.
Click to expand...

Love Sale and would go very high for him, but - don't the Sox have Adam Eaton in CF? Pretty solid in the Ender mold, ¿no?
 
Enscheff said:
Would anyone here trade Julio for Mallex, Wisler Cabrera and Ellis? No, and Sale is worth significantly more than Julio.

So start with a Julio-level package (Swanson or Albies plus one of the elite arms in Rome), then add another top 100 talent (the Braves have 7 of them) to that package to get Sale. Sale is not coming to Atlanta for guys like Ellis, Wisler and Cabrera, no matter how many of them you try to bundle together. The ChiSox will want 3 premium guys at a minimum for him.
Click to expand...

We've got twelve pitching prospects for a reason. If the Sox are tired of his purported antics, give 'em three of them plus Riley or whatever. I'll take him off their hands.

To me, it's pretty simple. Do we sign/trade for a couple of 3/4s - placeholders - or one and an ace? Given the accelerated tolerability of our lineup, I'm inclined to take a shot at the ace. I am, however, more inclined toward Quintana or Archer, if they're a little cheaper. Or, heaven forfend, both.
 
as much as I like Sale, I would much prefer not trading what we built up over the past 1 1/2 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top