Possible SP target... maybe

Wait, Sullivan thinks a 3-4 WAR MLB player, #21 pre-2016 prospect, #29 pre-2016 prospect, and ~100 top prospect is NOT worth #4 pre-2016 prospect?!??

And NO I don't know why the Dodgers wouldn't jump all over that deal. That is WAY to much to give up for ONE prospect..Sullivan is a moron!!
 
Enscheff said:
I usually agree with, or at least understand the point of, most things the guys at FG write, but every once in a while they drop things like this:

Alex

11:09 Ender, Albies, Newcomb, and Touki to LA for Urias?

Jeff Sullivan

11:09 I like the idea but LA wouldn't do that. Not enough upside, I don't think -- Urias, they believe, can and will be an ace

Is there anyone here that would make that trade from a Braves perspective? In my opinion, that package for Urias is beyond ludicrous.

Or am I severely underrating Urias?
Click to expand...

As a Braves fan, I would not do that. However, I also understand the Dodgers not wanting to do it, either. That package, in pure value terms, is an overpay for Urias. But these moves aren't made on pure value terms. If the Dodgers are 100% sold on Urias, then they can see that package from the Braves and see a weak-hitting defensive CF, a 2B/SS with good defense and little power, and two pitching prospects that still have to figure out their control.

I don't think that's a crazy thing for him to say. I think the Dodgers might pull the trigger on it were it offered (it won't be), but I also think they might not.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
I wonder about a Jordan Zimmerman and Anibal Sanchez trade. Maybe Mallex for Zimmerman, Sanchez and $5M (Sanchez' buyout of 2018).

Rotation of: Tehran, Zimmerman, Folty, Wisler, Sanchez

That would likely solve Detroits cash problems. I don't see Zimmerman as a #1 but he's a solid 2. Sanchez might bounce back but if not he's a back end body.
Click to expand...

How about Markakis for Zimmerman and Sanchez.
 
smootness said:
As a Braves fan, I would not do that. However, I also understand the Dodgers not wanting to do it, either. That package, in pure value terms, is an overpay for Urias. But these moves aren't made on pure value terms. If the Dodgers are 100% sold on Urias, then they can see that package from the Braves and see a weak-hitting defensive CF, a 2B/SS with good defense and little power, and two pitching prospects that still have to figure out their control.

I don't think that's a crazy thing for him to say. I think the Dodgers might pull the trigger on it were it offered (it won't be), but I also think they might not.
Click to expand...

I think it's absolutely crazy for him to say; it's better than the package we got for Shelby Miller, which people said at the time was close to what a package for Jose Fernandez should look like.
 
It looks like the Tigers are possibly going to trade Kinsler after all. If they do that would mean a hole in CF and 2B. Mallex and Jace could look appealing to them.
 
Chico said:
It looks like the Tigers are possibly going to trade Kinsler after all. If they do that would mean a hole in CF and 2B. Mallex and Jace could look appealing to them.
Click to expand...

But the question is what are they really trying to do? Do they intend to try and compete next year? If so, they probably want to keep their best pitching in Verlander and Zimmerman.

Do they have a certain amount they need to cut by?

Will they throw in the towel and go for a rebuild? To me, this is what they should do because of age and player control. Their most valuable players are older (Verlander, Cabrera) and/or near FA Martinez. They do have a couple of decent young players to build around in Fulmer and Castellanos but overall the team has a lot of age.

What would the Red Sox give them for Cabrera and/or Verlander?

They could trade their high end producing veterans for max value and afford to ride out their mistakes like Sanchez.

They could move:

Cabrera
Verlander
Upton
Zimmerman
V Martinez
Kinsler
JD Martinez
Francisco Rodriguez

and ride out Sanchez, Lowe, Pelfrey in 2017 and go into 2018 with a young team and handfuls of cash to throw around on the ripe FA markets.

If you are Detroit, you DON'T do that if you think you might win in the next year or two, even while trading off valuable pieces due to finances.
 
smootness said:
As a Braves fan, I would not do that. However, I also understand the Dodgers not wanting to do it, either. That package, in pure value terms, is an overpay for Urias. But these moves aren't made on pure value terms. If the Dodgers are 100% sold on Urias, then they can see that package from the Braves and see a weak-hitting defensive CF, a 2B/SS with good defense and little power, and two pitching prospects that still have to figure out their control.

I don't think that's a crazy thing for him to say. I think the Dodgers might pull the trigger on it were it offered (it won't be), but I also think they might not.
Click to expand...

I think the main problem is that trades of future assets don't likely happen like that. A player like Urias would typically be traded for an older established guy like Sale, as would the suggested Braves package. Trades are usually prospects for veterans, not prospects for prospects.

For what it's worth, there is no way I trade 2 position players like Albies and Inciarte for a young unproven pitcher, much less add in additional prospect value on top of those 2 guys. The volatility of pitchers makes the risk side of the risk/reward analysis way too high.

I think smart teams will begin to move away from locking up a substantial portion of their assets (in terms of money and talent) into pitching, and funneling more into positional talent. They will move away from the Mets' model and towards the Cubs' model. Position players simply provide less volatility than pitching assets.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But the question is what are they really trying to do? Do they intend to try and compete next year? If so, they probably want to keep their best pitching in Verlander and Zimmerman.

Do they have a certain amount they need to cut by?

Will they throw in the towel and go for a rebuild? To me, this is what they should do because of age and player control. Their most valuable players are older (Verlander, Cabrera) and/or near FA Martinez. They do have a couple of decent young players to build around in Fulmer and Castellanos but overall the team has a lot of age.

What would the Red Sox give them for Cabrera and/or Verlander?

They could trade their high end producing veterans for max value and afford to ride out their mistakes like Sanchez.

They could move:

Cabrera
Verlander
Upton
Zimmerman
V Martinez
Kinsler
JD Martinez
Francisco Rodriguez

and ride out Sanchez, Lowe, Pelfrey in 2017 and go into 2018 with a young team and handfuls of cash to throw around on the ripe FA markets.

If you are Detroit, you DON'T do that if you think you might win in the next year or two, even while trading off valuable pieces due to finances.
Click to expand...

I would be shocked if the Tigers do a complete tear down this offseason.

Everything I have read suggests the Tigers are going to try to walk that line between rebuilding and contention. A team in the AL Central doesn't have to be very good to win that division, so now is not the time for a full rebuild with a core of Verlander and Cabrera.

They will likely look to trade JD for a young position player upgrade somewhere, and then sign one of the many slugging LF types on the FA market. They will also likely look to dump Sanchez and/or Pelfrey on someone, even if that means giving up a prospect to do it.
 
Enscheff said:
I would be shocked if the Tigers do a complete tear down this offseason.

Everything I have read suggests the Tigers are going to try to walk that line between rebuilding and contention. A team in the AL Central doesn't have to be very good to win that division, so now is not the time for a full rebuild with a core of Verlander and Cabrera.

They will likely look to trade JD for a young position player upgrade somewhere, and then sign one of the many slugging LF types on the FA market. They will also likely look to dump Sanchez and/or Pelfrey on someone, even if that means giving up a prospect to do it.
Click to expand...

You are probably right BUT that fine line is very fine indeed. Both Cabrera and Verlander aren't getting any better since they aren't getting any younger. Both are great players now but aren't enough alone to make the Tigers a true contender and certainly won't be in future years.

To dump Sanchez and Pelfry without eating money, they would have to include talent going along as no one believes that either justify now or in the future anywhere near their cost. If it is young minor league talent they send, it means they have to win now since they have mortgaged the future. If they send major league talent instead, then they are diminishing the ML clubs ability to be a true contender.

From my POV, the White Sox are in much better shape to contend short term by keeping their core together because of age and cost.

The whole AL Central is pretty much a wreck outside of Cleveland and even they are dependent on some older bats that are unlikely to repeat 2016 numbers.

KC should rebuild.
Detroit should rebuild.
Minnesota never stopped rebuilding
Chisox should go for it.
Cleveland needs to keep riding the wave if they can.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But the question is what are they really trying to do? Do they intend to try and compete next year? If so, they probably want to keep their best pitching in Verlander and Zimmerman.

Do they have a certain amount they need to cut by?

Will they throw in the towel and go for a rebuild? To me, this is what they should do because of age and player control. Their most valuable players are older (Verlander, Cabrera) and/or near FA Martinez. They do have a couple of decent young players to build around in Fulmer and Castellanos but overall the team has a lot of age.

What would the Red Sox give them for Cabrera and/or Verlander?

They could trade their high end producing veterans for max value and afford to ride out their mistakes like Sanchez.

They could move:

Cabrera
Verlander
Upton
Zimmerman
V Martinez
Kinsler
JD Martinez
Francisco Rodriguez

and ride out Sanchez, Lowe, Pelfrey in 2017 and go into 2018 with a young team and handfuls of cash to throw around on the ripe FA markets.

If you are Detroit, you DON'T do that if you think you might win in the next year or two, even while trading off valuable pieces due to finances.
Click to expand...

When you have an 87 year old owner who wants to win I'm not sure a complete rebuild is in the cards.

I think they can trade Kinsler and JD for young starting pitching and Zimmerman or Verlander for some young positions players.
 
emk418 said:
Jason Hammel would be a very solid option for us
Click to expand...

Really surprised the Cubs just cut him loose.

The problem with Hammel is that he's likely going to require at least a three year commitment (particularly in this market) to sign, and I wonder if Coppy really wants to go there with a Pitcher who's already 34 and has never thrown more than 177.2 innings in a season. I don't think there's any question that he'd make our rotation better, but do you really want to be paying him $15 million per with no "out" other than to hope you can trade him if some of our arms that are close take steps forward?

I don't have an answer to that, but do think it's something that the brass would have to look long and hard at. The same thing applies to others like Volquez/Cashner/etc. and potential trade targets. I don't think the money's the issue as much as the lack of flexibility it could create in 2019 (or earlier). If the brass expects Folty and Newcomb to fill two spots by 2018 and thinks some combination of Wisler/Blair/Fried/Sims/Weigel could capably fill the back-end slots in 2017 or 2018, I'd think it'll be hard to commit to someone for that long. I'd personally prefer guys like Santana/Holland/Garcia/Cobb/Smyly/Odorizzi for that reason - even if you have to give up something to keep that flexibility.

Probably just comes down to how much Coppy & Company believe in the kids.
 
Derek Holland just had his option declined by TEX. Adds another LH starter option to free agency, so a good development for the Braves.
 
dak said:
Derek Holland just had his option declined by TEX. Adds another LH starter option to free agency, so a good development for the Braves.
Click to expand...

The problem with that is now you'd have to bid on him as a free-agent and probably have to guarantee 3 years - he was much more interesting to me when we could have gotten him for a marginal prospect and had an option to keep him beyond 2017 if we wanted.
 
clvclv said:
Really surprised the Cubs just cut him loose.

The problem with Hammel is that he's likely going to require at least a three year commitment (particularly in this market) to sign, and I wonder if Coppy really wants to go there with a Pitcher who's already 34 and has never thrown more than 177.2 innings in a season. I don't think there's any question that he'd make our rotation better, but do you really want to be paying him $15 million per with no "out" other than to hope you can trade him if some of our arms that are close take steps forward?

I don't have an answer to that, but do think it's something that the brass would have to look long and hard at. The same thing applies to others like Volquez/Cashner/etc. and potential trade targets. I don't think the money's the issue as much as the lack of flexibility it could create in 2019 (or earlier). If the brass expects Folty and Newcomb to fill two spots by 2018 and thinks some combination of Wisler/Blair/Fried/Sims/Weigel could capably fill the back-end slots in 2017 or 2018, I'd think it'll be hard to commit to someone for that long. I'd personally prefer guys like Santana/Holland/Garcia/Cobb/Smyly/Odorizzi for that reason - even if you have to give up something to keep that flexibility.

Probably just comes down to how much Coppy & Company believe in the kids.
Click to expand...

Cubs didn't think he was worth 12 million, right?

Maybe 30/2 with a club option for 15 million? That might get it done. And with inflation, that could be a tradeable deal if we are lucky enough that a Newcombe busts down the door. 15 million for one year with a club option could be a really attractive piece for someone.
 
clvclv said:
The problem with that is now you'd have to bid on him as a free-agent and probably have to guarantee 3 years - he was much more interesting to me when we could have gotten him for a marginal prospect and had an option to keep him beyond 2017 if we wanted.
Click to expand...

True..But teams weren't willing to take on his 11M in 17 and 1M buyout versus 11.5M contract in 2018. That tells me teams aren't all that interested in him. We could possibly get him cheaper and not lose the prospect, even if it was a marginal prospect. Yes, we will be competing with other teams now, but we have an idea of his monetary value to other teams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top