Keith Law's Midseason Top 50 Update

Hard to argue with Scheff's logic on trading pitchers, it's uncommon and will never happen.

But thats how you build a consistent winner year in and year out.
 
Enscheff said:
Maybe your buddy mrfree that thanked your gloating post can help.

Couple geniuses you two!!
Click to expand...

What a surprise that you resort to name calling whenever someone disagrees with you.

By the way... here is your first attempt to deflect this thread.... "You're right, the Braves are masterful at handling pitching assets." All I wanted was for you to answer the question rather than start calling people names. We see how that went.
 
Enscheff said:
Hmm, let's see....

After the 2014 season, Medlen had 2 years of control left. My process would have seen him traded that offseason.

Instead, the Braves kept him, and he got hurt in ST 2015.

Next? You guys are soo ****ing smart right?
Click to expand...

Yeah that isn't accurate. Like at all.

And even if you had the correct years, your answer is that a team who many predicted to win the east in 2014, should trade their top starter... and replace him with what?
 
mfree80 said:
What a surprise that you resort to name calling whenever someone disagrees with you.

By the way... here is your first attempt to deflect this thread.... "You're right, the Braves are masterful at handling pitching assets." All I wanted was for you to answer the question rather than start calling people names. We see how that went.
Click to expand...

Why would I need to deflect? I was right.

I was going to let you and Southcrack continue on in peace and ignorance until he decided to post the first "that's what I thought" shot.

But by all means, keep arguing with me.
 
Carp said:
So you're saying the Rays and A's don't go through periods of non-contention?
Click to expand...

They don't have to rebuild because their window closed. They consistently contend about as well as their payroll could possibly allow them to by employing that process with pitching assets.

The A's have been to the postseason almost as many times as the Braves since 2000, and the Rays are almost always in the thick of the toughest division in baseball. Their success is proof positive that process is optimal.

Add the Braves superior resources to the equation and the results will be even better.
 
Carp said:
Yeah that isn't accurate. Like at all.

And even if you had the correct years, your answer is that a team who many predicted to win the east in 2014, should trade their top starter... and replace him with what?
Click to expand...

I've answered this 5x.

They will be replaced from within or with a stop gap FA. Rays traded Price. A's traded some good ones to, one of them to Atlanta.
 
Enscheff said:
Why would I need to deflect? I was right.

I was going to let you and Southcrack continue on in peace and ignorance until he decided to post the first "that's what I thought" shot.

But by all means, keep arguing with me.
Click to expand...

I mean if your position is really that the optimal time to trade Medlen was after the 2014 season when he had two years of control left, I guess that's a theory.

I'm not sure how much return the Braves would have gotten from a pitcher still recovering from his second TJ surgery would have been. they seemed to think non-tendering him in December 2014 was the better decision.

I think you probably meant that they should have traded him after the 2013 season when he was good, but he had three years of service time remaining. They might have gotten a return off of him then. It would have been a pretty unusual thing for a 96 win team to do, but maybe GM Chef would have done it.

Either way, he didn't tear his elbow in Spring Training 2015. It was 2014.
 
Enscheff said:
I've answered this 5x.

They will be replaced from within or with a stop gap FA. Rays traded Price. A's traded some good ones to, one of them to Atlanta.
Click to expand...

And it took the Rays 3 years to get back to contention. And they're probably going to trade their best pitcher in the offseason again, and struggle to contend in 2018.
 
Southcack77 said:
I mean if your position is really that the optimal time to trade Medlen was after the 2014 season when he had two years of control left, I guess that's a theory.

I'm not sure how much return the Braves would have gotten from a pitcher still recovering from his second TJ surgery would have been. they seemed to think non-tendering him in December 2014 was the better decision.

I think you probably meant that they should have traded him after the 2013 season when he was good, but he had three years of service time remaining. They might have gotten a return off of him then. It would have been a pretty unusual thing for a 96 win team to do, but maybe GM Chef would have done it.

Either way, he didn't tear his elbow in Spring Training 2015. It was 2014.
Click to expand...

OK, one last time, no typos...I double checked the years I typed 3x.

Medlen's first FA season was 2016 (the first entry in the table with a value of 6.000 or greater). Look at Heyward's table, the first 6.000+ is 2016, his first FA year with the Cubs. Look at Machado, his first 6.000+ year will be 2019, his first FA year with the Braves.

That means the Braves controlled Medlen through 2015.

They should have traded him after his 2013 season, when they still controlled him for 2014 and 2015. That is 2 years of control remaining. That is NOT 3+ years of control.

They didn't and he was injured in ST of 2014.

You were 100% wrong. He did not have 3+ years of control remaining. He has 2 seasons of control left and should have been traded.

I hope you learned how to read service time tables tonight. You're welcome.
 
Enscheff said:
A contender should never sell at the deadline. Period.

A non-contender should look to sell any pitcher at the deadline if they have 2.3333 years or less of control remaining (like Gray now).

A contender should look to sell pitchers with 2 years of control left in the offseason (like the Rays dealt Smly).

If a pitcher with 2 years of control remaining is coming off injury, they should keep him to prove he is healthy, then trade him either at the deadline (if not contending), or in the next off season (if contending).

If a guy is coming off 2 consecutive years of injury, and the team is forced to use him in his last year of control, use him up and let him walk as a FA.

Ideally, the system will produce 1 pitcher per year. The rotation will look like this:

Rookie(s)

5 years control

4 years control

3 years control

homegrown pitcher recovering from injury

FA stop gaps should be signed to fill any holes. These FA stopgaps should be pitchers like Colon and Dickey signed to 1 year deals, maybe with an option. Never spend more on FA pitching.

The Braves superior resources should allow them to sign better FA stopgaps than the A's or Rays are capable of signing.

Guarantee no pitcher any money through his 20s if his 20s are already controlled (Folty, likely with Wright, Sims and Newk). Maintaining the ability to cut them loose at no cost is important.

Extend any promising pitcher if his 20s are not controlled, buying FA years up to and possibly including his age 30 season only (Teheran contract, likely with Soroka and Allard). Gaining control of these FA years in their late 20s is worth assuming the risk of guaranteeing seasons in their early 20s.

I think that pretty much covers all possible scenarios. Use them up, and ship them out. That's the most efficient way to handle pitching assets and maintain long term competitiveness.
Click to expand...

So your master plan for a contending team in the offseason is to sell Sale and buy RA Dickey?
 
Enscheff said:
OK, one last time, no typos...I double checked the years I typed 3x.

Medlen's first FA season was 2016 (the first entry in the table with a value of 6.000 or greater). Look at Heyward's table, the first 6.000+ is 2016, his first FA year with the Cubs. Look at Machado, his first 6.000+ year will be 2019, his first FA year with the Braves.

That means the Braves controlled Medlen through 2015.

They should have traded him after his 2013 season, when they still controlled him for 2014 and 2015. That is 2 years of control remaining. That is NOT 3+ years of control.

They didn't and he was injured in ST of 2014.

You were 100% wrong. He did not have 3+ years of control remaining. He has 2 seasons of control left and should have been traded.

I hope you learned how to read service time tables tonight. You're welcome.
Click to expand...

Man, I was counting on fingers and toes and still messed that one up. I do apologize for the service time error. I really did try to get it right and I really was confused by your timeline. I do thank you for explaining it. I don't mind you calling me out on this one for awhile, but try not to overdue it. It's been a really long day.

You've laid it out correctly now, I think.

The Braves certainly would have come out ahead on Medlen had they traded him on March 8, 2014. you have a theory on the trading SP with two years of control. I'm not sure it is feasible for a team that is contending, but it might be the way to go. I'm not saying its wrong, but possibly impracticable.
 
smootness said:
So your master plan for a contending team in the offseason is to sell Sale and buy RA Dickey?
Click to expand...

Yeah, no.

The plan is to trade Sale for premium prospects and replace him with a premium prospect acquired at an earlier date from trading a TOR pitcher a few years ago.

I laid it out pretty clearly. I'm sorry if you can't follow it.

I realize it's hard to think further in advance than a season or two, but just attempt to stretch your mental capacity juuuuust a bit.
 
Enscheff said:
Yeah, no.

The plan is to trade Sale for premium prospects and replace him with a premium prospect acquired at an earlier date from trading a TOR pitcher a few years ago.

I laid it out pretty clearly. I'm sorry if you can't follow it.

I realize it's hard to think further in advance than a season or two, but just attempt to stretch your mental capacity juuuuust a bit.
Click to expand...

Good gosh, shut up.

I get your rationale for trading these guys. But you are replacing Sale with Dickey. That is exactly what you're doing for that year's team. Yes, if you trade Sale then you have those prospects for later teams, but it worsens that team for the next 2 years. It just does. You are at least reducing the level of your team by the difference between Sale and a graduating prospect.

I understand it is always the right play from a strict value perspective. But the goal of a team is to win championships. Trading an ace with 2 years left lessens your chance of winning a championship in those 2 seasons. Yes, it helps you down the road, so conceivably you have a better chance in later years than you otherwise would have, but you're still constantly taking the top off your team by trading them all. And it also doesn't account for the fact that they won't all pan out and they will advance at different rates.

So your plan to have one pitcher traded and one graduate every year is great, there is a hitch in the plan when 2-3 find themselves on the same timeline. Just yesterday you were arguing the Braves should trade multiple pitching prospects for one MLB starter because it reduces risk despite the fact that we aren't contenders...but then once we're ready to contend, we'd have to trade that pitcher, wasting some of his value on non-contending teams.

And you still haven't discussed why you're ok with a contender buying at the deadline.
 
Also, giant lulz on your claim that it's always others who start things. I just asked you a legitimate question, and that's how you respond?
 
smootness said:
Good gosh, shut up.

I get your rationale for trading these guys. But you are replacing Sale with Dickey. That is exactly what you're doing for that year's team. Yes, if you trade Sale then you have those prospects for later teams, but it worsens that team for the next 2 years. It just does. You are at least reducing the level of your team by the difference between Sale and a graduating prospect.

I understand it is always the right play from a strict value perspective. But the goal of a team is to win championships. Trading an ace with 2 years left lessens your chance of winning a championship in those 2 seasons. Yes, it helps you down the road, so conceivably you have a better chance in later years than you otherwise would have, but you're still constantly taking the top off your team by trading them all. And it also doesn't account for the fact that they won't all pan out and they will advance at different rates.

So your plan to have one pitcher traded and one graduate every year is great, there is a hitch in the plan when 2-3 find themselves on the same timeline. Just yesterday you were arguing the Braves should trade multiple pitching prospects for one MLB starter because it reduces risk despite the fact that we aren't contenders...but then once we're ready to contend, we'd have to trade that pitcher, wasting some of his value on non-contending teams.

And you still haven't discussed why you're ok with a contender buying at the deadline.
Click to expand...

Again...no.

Sale is being replaced with a top prospect. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear, so I'll stop wasting time dumbing it down more for you.

I only read the first few sentences of your derp tirade because I'm quite positive you are completely unable to understand this. Even thethe was able to grasp it, so I'm not sure what your issue is. I'll just chalk it up to a lost cause.

Anyways, I'm sure you are able to formulate a better process for handling pitchers. Feel free to refer to it when you make suggestions about potential roster moves.
 
Enscheff said:
Again...no.

Sale is being replaced with a top prospect. I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear, so I'll stop wasting time dumbing it down more for you.

I only read the first few sentences of your derp tirade because I'm quite positive you are completely unable to understand this. Even thethe was able to grasp it, so I'm not sure what your issue is. I'll just chalk it up to a lost cause.

Anyways, I'm sure you are able to formulate a better process for handling pitchers. Feel free to refer to it when you make suggestions about potential roster moves.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the prospect they're calling up to replace Sale in the rotation that year, they would have him regardless. Yes, he would conceivably have come from a prior year's trade, I get that. I'm just talking about the team you put on the field for the year of the trade.

So yes, you are replacing Sale with Dickey. Unless your prospect is only good enough to be your #5 starter once called up, in which case, you're replacing Sale with a #5 starter. Great, my point is still made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top