Still a lot left to do

[GovClintonTyree]

It's simple. I go with the lefties.

I like really good lefties.

I also like really good righties.

 

[smootness]

Why is it that a when player's "value" is supposedly highest, so the default is "trade him"? Inciarte might be even better. Even so, we don't know his full value to this club, especially when they start to get really good.

The last 3 years, it's like a forum obsession to just trade, trade, trade...without any concept about building a contending club around specific assets. Inciarte is really good. You don't trade him, simply for that reason. That is, unless somebody comes in and makes an offer that can't be refused. If you had to identify internal options, Mallex Smith hasn't shown that he's better yet.

Keep both Inciarte and Mallex Smith. Trade Markakis for whatever.

Nailed it.

 

[thewupk]

Braves won't trade Ender unless it really upgrades the team. Moves like the Kemp trade and calling up Swanson means the team is progressing to become a contender and that means keeping your best players. Ender is one of those.

 

[Southcack77]

Braves won't trade Ender unless it really upgrades the team. Moves like the Kemp trade and calling up Swanson means the team is progressing to become a contender and that means keeping your best players. Ender is one of those.

I mean that's the idea right? You trade Ender if it lands you something more valuable, that addresses a major weakness, that makes your club more likely to win a championship.

You don't trade him simply for the heck of it. If he is part of the price that lands a top of the rotation starter or a great 3B, well I'd argue that would be more valuable to the team.

If you don't get something great, then don't do the deal.

but the world where the Braves cobble together Chris Ellis, Camargo, and whatever other spare pieces people want to jettison lands some great player...not a real place.

 

[thewupk]

I mean that's the idea right? You trade Ender if it lands you something more valuable, that addresses a major weakness, that makes your club more likely to win a championship.

You don't trade him simply for the heck of it. If he is part of the price that lands a top of the rotation starter or a great 3B, well I'd argue that would be more valuable to the team.

If you don't get something great, then don't do the deal.

but the world where the Braves cobble together Chris Ellis, Camargo, and whatever other spare pieces people want to jettison lands some great player...not a real place.

In the vein of trading Ender with someone that is a year or two away from FA even if they are a stud. That's the type of trade the team needs to avoid but I don't really see any indication that they may be considering that. Ender is cost controlled for 4 more seasons and is a 3+ WAR player. The Braves would need one heck of a return for it to be worth trading him.

The only real reason to trade Ender is if the team wasn't going to compete for 3 more years. Then trading Ender, JT, and Freeman would be good ideas. But that's clearly not he case here.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

In the vein of trading Ender with someone that is a year or two away from FA even if they are a stud. That's the type of trade the team needs to avoid but I don't really see any indication that they may be considering that. Ender is cost controlled for 4 more seasons and is a 3+ WAR player. The Braves would need one heck of a return for it to be worth trading him.

The only real reason to trade Ender is if the team wasn't going to compete for 3 more years. Then trading Ender, JT, and Freeman would be good ideas. But that's clearly not he case here.

I wouldn't say clearly not the case.

I would say it is not the intent.

I categorize contention as finishing above .500. I think the Braves have to add a significant amount this offseason to get above .500 and that's if they get equal performance out of everyone (I know about the second half, but you can't ignore the first half for the players still on the team. It's 162 for a reason). They could always get better performances out of some of the existing team but IMO it's unlikely for Kemp and Markais and Flowers to be better because of age.

Getting to 75 wins next year doesn't necessarily mean that the next year will be 81-81 and the year after that 90-72 and so on. It depends on how its done.

 

[nsacpi]

I wouldn't say clearly not the case.

I would say it is not the intent.

I categorize contention as finishing above .500. I think the Braves have to add a significant amount this offseason to get above .500 and that's if they get equal performance out of everyone (I know about the second half, but you can't ignore the first half for the players still on the team. It's 162 for a reason). They could always get better performances out of some of the existing team but IMO it's unlikely for Kemp and Markais and Flowers to be better because of age.

Getting to 75 wins next year doesn't necessarily mean that the next year will be 81-81 and the year after that 90-72 and so on. It depends on how its done.

I think we'll be about a .500 team on the expected win curve if we add McCann or Jason Castro and a couple mid-rotation type starters (say Cashner and de la Rosa).

But I agree with your point that we want to avoid cannibalizing from the future and we want to maintain as much financial flexibility as possible. For me this means signing free agents who do not have a qualifying offer. And trading for guys on contracts with little or no surplus value. Kemp and McCann would be examples of the latter. You can trade for those guys without giving up any first-tier prospects.

On the issue of financial flexibility, I think the Kemp trade allows us to avoid signing someone like Cespedes to a six-year contract. It is usually the lengths of the contracts that come back to haunt the mid-market teams. And I'd rather have Kemp for 3 years at 18M/year than Cespedes for 6 years at 25M or more per year.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

I agree with what you are saying, especially the need to avoid the Cespedes type signing. Signing Cespedes is a classic win now move where his production probably is worthwhile in 2017 and 2018 but likely becomes more of an albatross each year thereafter.

I think the team as of today is severely short on power and power starting pitching. The young guys may eventually fix the SP but I'm not sure where the long term help in power comes from.

Looking at the playoff teams, the HR power for each is:

AL - Bal 253, Bos 208, Cle 185, Tor 221, Tex 215 with the AL average being 197

NL - CHC 199, LAD 189, NYM 218, WSN 203, SFG 130 with the NL average being 177

Cleveland and San Fran are the only clubs coming in under league average and Cleveland was close. San Fran has done it before with relatively limited power and it plays to their park but overall a good rule of thumb is that to be a playoff team you need to be league average or better to make the playoffs.

The Braves finished at 122. Having Kemp for a full year should help that number some. But, the lack of traditional power at RF, 3B, C and to an extent 2B really hurts the Braves over 162.

 

[smootness]

I agree with what you are saying, especially the need to avoid the Cespedes type signing. Signing Cespedes is a classic win now move where his production probably is worthwhile in 2017 and 2018 but likely becomes more of an albatross each year thereafter.

Really all we need to field a team with roughly average power next year is for 3B to hit about 15-20 (certainly doable even with Garcia and Ruiz platooning) and for us to grab a C who can hit 15-20. That's not as easy a task, but it can be done.

If all you're looking at is HR totals then Kemp helps a ton. I don't think we're really 'severely' lacking in power anymore.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

I think we'll be about a .500 team on the expected win curve if we add McCann or Jason Castro and a couple mid-rotation type starters (say Cashner and de la Rosa).

But I agree with your point that we want to avoid cannibalizing from the future and we want to maintain as much financial flexibility as possible. For me this means signing free agents who do not have a qualifying offer. And trading for guys on contracts with little or no surplus value. Kemp and McCann would be examples of the latter. You can trade for those guys without giving up any first-tier prospects.

On the issue of financial flexibility, I think the Kemp trade allows us to avoid signing someone like Cespedes to a six-year contract. It is usually the lengths of the contracts that come back to haunt the mid-market teams. And I'd rather have Kemp for 3 years at 18M/year than Cespedes for 6 years at 25M or more per year.

Me too on the flexibility thing.

What do you think of the possibility of finding some higher end arms for three years? Someone to pair with Teheran at the top?

 

[nsacpi]

Me too on the flexibility thing.

What do you think of the possibility of finding some higher end arms for three years? Someone to pair with Teheran at the top?

I think we will go in that direction at some point. I don't see this off-season as the moment. But we will pick up someone like Greinke at some point when the remaining length of the contract is about three years. It might be a mid-season trade one of these years when we've had a good first half but need some pitching.

 

[Southcack77]

The biggest reason the Braves are not contenders is that they really only have one proven rotation piece.

The place where they could make up the most ground in the rebuild is acquiring a top of the rotation starter or even two. If they did that, all of the sudden the contention window (and by that I mean playoffs) is much more open.

Whether the cost of acquiring that talent is more of the future than the Braves are willing to part with, I don't know. I've always assumed that the purpose of acquiring all this young talent wasn't to trade it for older more established talent, but to develop it.

I think the cost of acquiring quality pieces to the rotation is considerably more than guys like Chris Ellis and relief prospects. I also rather doubt it is four top 100 prospects, because this is an era where you don't really see that happen so much any more.

Personally, I think a proven top of the rotation asset is more valuable than prospects, particularly if that asset has a fair amount of control, isn't injured, and is a personality fit for your organization. So to me, if you could get a TOR starter with a reasonable amount of future in Atlanta, parting with some of your better assets isn't such a bad idea if your intention is to go for it.

Personally, I would simply work on getting better and waiting to see what the prospects do in development. But I am beginning to question whether the FO is feeling the pressure to take a shot. I wonder if the tracking stock might be a bit of pressure itself.

There is a baseline of assumptions about what the Braves can spend and afford and what they will do going forward. I'm not sure those assumptions are accurate. We've obviously seen teams spend their way into contention and we've seen teams try to do it and it fail miserably.

I somewhat prefer that they make a somewhat fake attempt at contention by putting an interesting product on the field that doesn't tie up their payroll or trade away too many assets.

But if they go for it and it works then I guess that will be enjoyable to. It's just hard to see a big spree like that being particularly sustainable.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

Really all we need to field a team with roughly average power next year is for 3B to hit about 15-20 (certainly doable even with Garcia and Ruiz platooning) and for us to grab a C who can hit 15-20. That's not as easy a task, but it can be done.

If all you're looking at is HR totals then Kemp helps a ton. I don't think we're really 'severely' lacking in power anymore.

Power isn't all I look at but it IS a marker.

And having Kemp for a full year should help that number. But, I think if Markakis stays in RF, then the 3B and C need to be 20-25 guys not 15-20. Markakis' power "resurgence" while helpful still underscores that he has always been underpowered for a traditional RF, forcing a team to find above average power from a different position to compensate.

 

[smootness]

Power isn't all I look at but it IS a marker.

And having Kemp for a full year should help that number. But, I think if Markakis stays in RF, then the 3B and C need to be 20-25 guys not 15-20. Markakis' power "resurgence" while helpful still underscores that he has always been underpowered for a traditional RF, forcing a team to find above average power from a different position to compensate.

It just seems silly to suggest that it's much more likely we make the playoffs if a couple guys hit a handful more HR. Once you break it down that far, it just doesn't matter that much. I realize the trends are what they are, but if you go further back, HR is actually less of an indicator of playoff likelihood...though it does make sense that generally teams that hit more HR will probably tend to be better offensively overall and will tend to score more runs, thus also tend to be better teams in general.

I just think the focus on specific numbers as thresholds we must reach is taking it too far. I think our power is no longer dreadful and actually has a chance to be decent next year even if we don't make major moves. I don't think it will be a big hindrance in trying to put a decent team on the field.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

It just seems silly to suggest that it's much more likely we make the playoffs if a couple guys hit a handful more HR. Once you break it down that far, it just doesn't matter that much. I realize the trends are what they are, but if you go further back, HR is actually less of an indicator of playoff likelihood...though it does make sense that generally teams that hit more HR will probably tend to be better offensively overall and will tend to score more runs, thus also tend to be better teams in general.

I just think the focus on specific numbers as thresholds we must reach is taking it too far. I think our power is no longer dreadful and actually has a chance to be decent next year even if we don't make major moves. I don't think it will be a big hindrance in trying to put a decent team on the field.

I've done this before so I won't do it again but if you go back to 1990 only a "handful" of teams have made the postseason when they hit less HR than league average. And, of those handful to make the playoffs only a couple or three have won the WS. And those teams were teams who played in extreme pitchers parks, in pitching divisions (Giants, Royals).

Having a team that doesn't have league average HR power isn't an absolute guarantee of no playoffs or WS. But it is the longest of long shots as history says.

That said, the Braves as it stands general get less than traditional power out of RF, 3B, C and maybe 2B. Until he had this breakout year last year Freeman was consistently below traditional for a 1B. If you are below traditional it usually means you have to make it up elsewhere.

 

[smootness]

I've done this before so I won't do it again but if you go back to 1990 only a "handful" of teams have made the postseason when they hit less HR than league average. And, of those handful to make the playoffs only a couple or three have won the WS. And those teams were teams who played in extreme pitchers parks, in pitching divisions (Giants, Royals).

Having a team that doesn't have league average HR power isn't an absolute guarantee of no playoffs or WS. But it is the longest of long shots as history says.

That said, the Braves as it stands general get less than traditional power out of RF, 3B, C and maybe 2B. Until he had this breakout year last year Freeman was consistently below traditional for a 1B. If you are below traditional it usually means you have to make it up elsewhere.

But this is where statistics can become constricting rather than illuminating. Sure, it helps your chances of being a good team if you hit more HR, this is certainly logical. I don't know anyone that wouldn't rather the Braves have more power than less.

My issue is in deciding that the 'league average' mark is some kind of magic line where if you drop 1 HR below, or 10 HR below, you're now suddenly in the category of 'below league average' with all the other teams that didn't make the playoffs, making your chances the same as all theirs. My point is simply that I don't believe, once you break it down that far, 5-10 HR is going to mean all that much in the grand scheme. So as long as we can get ourselves relatively close to league average, I'm fine with that and think that gives us a chance to be a decent team overall.

We hit 122 HR this year, including 12 from Kemp. I'm sure we had more HR from LF before Kemp, but I can't imagine it was all that much between Kelly Johnson, Francouer, etc. So let's say we add 18-20 more from LF next year based on Kemp playing there all year. Now we're at 142. We got 6 HR from SS; let's say Swanson hits 12 next year, now we're at 148. It would be nice to add about 30 more on top of that. Our C and 3B positions combined to hit 26 HR last year. Sure it would be nice if we could get both positions to around 25 each and get all the way to league average. I just refuse to believe, though, that if it's only about 18-19 each or so, and we get to 160 instead, that means we have a much worse chance of making the playoffs than if they'd both averaged 24.

 

[clvclv]

Braves won't trade Ender unless it really upgrades the team. Moves like the Kemp trade and calling up Swanson means the team is progressing to become a contender and that means keeping your best players. Ender is one of those.

Pretty sure that's the case too - but just exactly what constitutes a "big upgrade"?

Just another rainy day without much going on, so why not look into off the wall (if not completely unlikely) scenarios? Mozeliak has made it clear that the Cards have every intention of upgrading in CF this winter. Is it entirely necessary to "win" an Inciarte trade, or is it more important that we upgrade as many areas as possible? For instance...

Ender and a choice of Newcomb, Blair, or Toussaint for Harrison Bader and Alex Reyes.

The Cards could shift Grichuk (who slashed .297/.330/.535/.865 with 5 HRs and 9 2Bs in September and October, BTW) to LF full-time now that they've decided to let Holliday go, and they'd have a great defensive OF with him, Ender, and Piscotty.

Reyes gives you that TOR arm that's ready NOW. Mallex takes over in CF and Swanson leads off until Albies takes over at 2B. Once that happens, you've got...

Teheran, Reyes, Folty, ???, Wisler/Blair/Newcomb

2B- Albies, SS- Swanson, 1B- Freeman, LF- Kemp, RF- Markakis, C- Flowers/Mac???, 3B- Ruiz/Garcia, SP, CF- Mallex

You'd also have Bader ready to step in if/when Markakis is moved.

 

[nsacpi]

Ender and a choice of Newcomb, Blair, or Toussaint for Harrison Bader and Alex Reyes.

If we are to trade Ender it should be for a clear win. And this trade would be a clear win imo. I don't think the Cards would do this, but this is the kind of trade that we should be shooting for.

 

[Horsehide Harry]

But this is where statistics can become constricting rather than illuminating. Sure, it helps your chances of being a good team if you hit more HR, this is certainly logical. I don't know anyone that wouldn't rather the Braves have more power than less.

My issue is in deciding that the 'league average' mark is some kind of magic line where if you drop 1 HR below, or 10 HR below, you're now suddenly in the category of 'below league average' with all the other teams that didn't make the playoffs, making your chances the same as all theirs. My point is simply that I don't believe, once you break it down that far, 5-10 HR is going to mean all that much in the grand scheme. So as long as we can get ourselves relatively close to league average, I'm fine with that and think that gives us a chance to be a decent team overall.

We hit 122 HR this year, including 12 from Kemp. I'm sure we had more HR from LF before Kemp, but I can't imagine it was all that much between Kelly Johnson, Francouer, etc. So let's say we add 18-20 more from LF next year based on Kemp playing there all year. Now we're at 142. We got 6 HR from SS; let's say Swanson hits 12 next year, now we're at 148. It would be nice to add about 30 more on top of that. Our C and 3B positions combined to hit 26 HR last year. Sure it would be nice if we could get both positions to around 25 each and get all the way to league average. I just refuse to believe, though, that if it's only about 18-19 each or so, and we get to 160 instead, that means we have a much worse chance of making the playoffs than if they'd both averaged 24.

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying. But history says being below league average in HR is not a good recipe for success. If there were a "bunch" of teams that "just missed" league average but made the playoffs and went on to win the WS then the data would show that.

I do think that a lot of HR even if it is below league average is probably OK if league average is inflated for some reason. I would point to Cleveland from this year as an example. They had 185 HR but were still below the league average of 197. Like you, I would find it hard to believe that 185 HR isn't enough.

 

[thewupk]

Pretty sure that's the case too - but just exactly what constitutes a "big upgrade"?

Just another rainy day without much going on, so why not look into off the wall (if not completely unlikely) scenarios? Mozeliak has made it clear that the Cards have every intention of upgrading in CF this winter. Is it entirely necessary to "win" an Inciarte trade, or is it more important that we upgrade as many areas as possible? For instance...

Ender and a choice of Newcomb, Blair, or Toussaint for Harrison Bader and Alex Reyes.

The Cards could shift Grichuk (who slashed .297/.330/.535/.865 with 5 HRs and 9 2Bs in September and October, BTW) to LF full-time now that they've decided to let Holliday go, and they'd have a great defensive OF with him, Ender, and Piscotty.

Reyes gives you that TOR arm that's ready NOW. Mallex takes over in CF and Swanson leads off until Albies takes over at 2B. Once that happens, you've got...

Teheran, Reyes, Folty, ???, Wisler/Blair/Newcomb

2B- Albies, SS- Swanson, 1B- Freeman, LF- Kemp, RF- Markakis, C- Flowers/Mac???, 3B- Ruiz/Garcia, SP, CF- Mallex

You'd also have Bader ready to step in if/when Markakis is moved.

I would take it as Ender + prospect(s) and getting back two upgrades at positions of need who would be under control for a few years.

I see Ender as a 3-4 WAR player. For example if the Braves could find a match somewhere to bring in a 2-3 WAR 3B and a 2-3 WAR starting pitcher for Ender and a prospect or two then I would certainly be open to that. A 2 for 1 type move is something I would be looking for and then the team could have Mallex slide into center who should prove to be a quality center fielder as well. So while we do downgrade that position it shouldn't be that much imo.

I'm not sure if there is a team out there where everything would fit but if I trade Ender I would be looking for 2 upgrades at the major league level.