Shelby to AZ for E. Inciarte, A. Blair, and Dansby Swanson

Tough to grade offseasons because different teams have different goals.

The Diamondbacks and Tigers goals were to win now while their window is closing. And the Braves and Brewers goals was to tear it down and build for the future.

Based on those goals, I'd give the dbacks a better grade... but I don't think anyone denies that the Swanson deal was terrible... but if they win the WS, I don't think they'll care too much (before anyone starts screaming, I don't think they'll win the WS)
 
sturg33 said:
Tough to grade offseasons because different teams have different goals.

The Diamondbacks and Tigers goals were to win now while their window is closing. And the Braves and Brewers goals was to tear it down and build for the future.

Based on those goals, I'd give the dbacks a better grade... but I don't think anyone denies that the Swanson deal was terrible... but if they win the WS, I don't think they'll care too much (before anyone starts screaming, I don't think they'll win the WS)
Click to expand...

But they do take that into account. The Brewers and Braves were top 5 while rebuilding, and the Cubs, Mets, and White Sox were the others in the top 5, and they are trying to compete. The article is pretty clearly asking, 'Who had the best offseason, given their current goals?'

A bad deal is still a bad deal. Fangraphs' opinion pretty clearly seems to be that this deal did not put them in position to contend, and they gave up way too much future value because of that. You may disagree, but that is their opinion. They're not just saying it was a bad offseason because Fangraphs values future value more than current value.
 
nsacpi said:
I agree with the way they assessed our off-season, including the view that the we not get that good a return for Simmons.
Click to expand...

I don't think we would have gotten much better of a return for Simmons than the one we got. I think it was an even deal where both teams got what they were looking for. Given Albies' ascension (and especially now that we've added Swanson) and Simmons' offensive struggles, combined with his potentially diminishing defensive value, we decided now was the time to deal him, and we got a potential TOR starter in return for him. Newcomb is far from a certainty, so we didn't clearly win the deal, but it all hinges on what he becomes. If he maximizes his potential, we probably win the deal in a landslide. If he is a bust, we obviously lose it. If he becomes a decent SP, which is what he's most likely to become, then it will probably remain an even deal.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
So a guy with a 4.97 ERA who gives up a league leading 29 bombs and a league-leading 228 hits, a career ERA north of four projects to a 3.4 ERA because of statistical analysis?

I have a head analyst at work who tells me she can make numbers say anything she wants them to say.

I do look at stats but I don't only look at stats and I try to think critically about them rather than taking them at face value.
Click to expand...

There is no bias in the statistical analysis, no one is trying to make a player seem better than they are. Your point about making up numbers doesn't apply.
 
GovClintonTyree said:
I just looked it up. Strickland gave up 6 homers in 8.1 innings in the 2014 playoffs. Six.

You can make your numbers say whatever you want. But yeah, I think that matters and is part of why I think that bullpen is sketchy.
Click to expand...

So your point is that Strickland sucks because of an 8 inning sample 2 years ago?
 
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
Click to expand...

I think the Indians have Uribe to play third.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
Click to expand...

All the teams (minus the Brewers and Reds) listed in this MLBTR article about possible landing spots for for Austin Jackson could use Inciarte and/or Markakis (if the Braves covered a large chunk of his salary):

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/02/finding-a-landing-spot-for-austin-jackson.html
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
Click to expand...

You realize the Indians would arguably be giving up the THREE best players in that trade, right???
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
Click to expand...

C'mon man lol
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Looks like Cleveland needs outfielders. Maybe the Braves could interest them in a Inciarte, Garcia & Markakis trade for a Frazier, Naquin & Bradley with the Braves picking up the tab on Markakis for this year. The trade would allow the Indians to play Chisenhall in LF until Brantley is back then slide Chisenhall down to 3B to platoon with Garcia. If the Indians can survive until Brantley is back, they are a legit contender with that lineup and their pitching. The Braves would pick up a top RH OF power bat in Frazier (also a GA boy who could potentially be marketed), a top LH 1B power bat and a reasonable CF prospect who could battle M Smith for pt after the All-Star break. The Braves are paying Markakis this year anyway but would rid obligation for future years. The Braves could give up Garcia based on the presence of K Johnson and G Beckham.
Click to expand...

Murph3, is that you?!?!?
 
You guys act like Inciarte is some baseball God who can't be parted with, then slam a trade that values him highly. Life is easy when you set it up to have it both ways.

The funniest thing is that the ones who are the quickest to criticize rarely (if ever) put themselves out there with anything original. That would require opening yourselves up to criticism and we can't have that.

Is the trade heavy one way for the Braves? Sure. Is it more one way than the Swanson trade? Probably not.

Would the Indians even consider it? They would have to be desperate. But they SHOULD be desperate. They are a few bats away from contending and their window is closing with several of their SP getting ready to move on.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
They are a few bats away from contending and their window is closing with several of their SP getting ready to move on.
Click to expand...

:FrediWut:

Sometimes when you dig yourself a hole by saying something stupid it's best just to stop digging. The Indians top 4 pitchers are all under team control through 2020 at least, none of them are getting ready to move on. On top of that the Indians best prospects are OF, they have almost zero need to trade for OF. Zimmer will be ready by the beginning of 2017, and Frazier is likely ready by mid 2017.

I don't see anyone considering Inciarte untradeable, but your trade idea here is absurdly one sided in our direction, and makes no sense for the Indians give that their team is actually very young and mostly under team control. Their window is actually 2017ish-2020 or so, not now.
 
It would make sense for the Indians to trade one of their CF prospects for someone who is ready now. They have like four legit CF prospects, including both of their two best ones. I don't really see the trade that far off the mark. Naquin seems like his ceiling is an ok starter but a likely 4th OFer. Seems like a lesser version of Mallex. I don't think it works that much because I don't think they'd want Markakis, and asking for Bradley with Frazier is too much from them. But if we couldn't get a top 30ish guy or some similar value then we shouldn't trade Inciarte.
 
Oklahomabrave said:
It would make sense for the Indians to trade one of their CF prospects for someone who is ready now. They have like four legit CF prospects, including both of their two best ones. I don't really see the trade that far off the mark. Naquin seems like his ceiling is an ok starter but a likely 4th OFer. Seems like a lesser version of Mallex. I don't think it works that much because I don't think they'd want Markakis, and asking for Bradley with Frazier is too much from them. But if we couldn't get a top 30ish guy or some similar value then we shouldn't trade Inciarte.
Click to expand...

It would appear that they have a surplus of CF prospects. But do they really. On an actuarial basis, only one or two of the four will pan out. And unfortunately, neither they nor anyone else can know ahead of time which of those four it will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top