SUNDAY MINORS FINAL 5/14 ... 3 superlative starts

50PoundHead said:
Southcack makes great points in his two posts above.

(1) Sims has had some adjustment issues with each promotion, but once he finds himself, things go well. I thought the Braves rushed him in 2016. I don't mind being aggressive with guys, but if you have to drop them back a level mid-season, what have you really accomplished? Sims should have started 2016 in AA instead of AAA.

(2) As long as Kemp and Markakis are in the Braves' OF, Acuna will be in the minors. Those guys could be moved, of course, but it would likely require the Braves sending a check along with them to the team that acquires them. I'm not advocating one way or the other on those two, but there's no way Acuna comes to the big leagues to be a 4th OF.
Click to expand...

I don't see why they'd have to pay someone to take one year of Markakis at a fair salary. Might not get much for him, but if they are giving him away should not be a problem.

With Kemp, I guess you can only hope that some big wallet contender has a hole in its lineup and is willing to take on the money to give it a go. Since the Dodgers already had their run with him and I don't think the Red Sox or Cubs would really go down that path, I'm not sure who that would be. Yankees maybe? Otherwise, yeah they will be paying to get rid of him just like his last two teams.
 
msstate7 said:
If acuna can play cf, any chance we move inciarte instead?
Click to expand...

I thought about that after I posted my first thoughts and Inciarte does have a very friendly contract that wouldn't require the Braves to send dollars with him in a deal. I would prefer they hold onto Ender, but I have quit trying to take odds on what Coppolella may or may not do. I still think they try to move Markakis either at this deadline or in the off-season if Acuna shows he's ready to go at the big league level. Markakis could be a decent fit on the right team.
 
Southcack77 said:
I don't see why they'd have to pay someone to take one year of Markakis at a fair salary. Might not get much for him, but if they are giving him away should not be a problem.

With Kemp, I guess you can only hope that some big wallet contender has a hole in its lineup and is willing to take on the money to give it a go. Since the Dodgers already had their run with him and I don't think the Red Sox or Cubs would really go down that path, I'm not sure who that would be. Yankees maybe? Otherwise, yeah they will be paying to get rid of him just like his last two teams.
Click to expand...

KEMvP to rangers... probably not, but maybe the rangers can stay in the playoff race and kemp can keep hitting
 
Southcack77 said:
I don't see why they'd have to pay someone to take one year of Markakis at a fair salary. Might not get much for him, but if they are giving him away should not be a problem.

With Kemp, I guess you can only hope that some big wallet contender has a hole in its lineup and is willing to take on the money to give it a go. Since the Dodgers already had their run with him and I don't think the Red Sox or Cubs would really go down that path, I'm not sure who that would be. Yankees maybe? Otherwise, yeah they will be paying to get rid of him just like his last two teams.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on Markakis. I would consider eating money if it got us a real prospect. But I think we could move him. His money really isn't that bad.
 
JMO, but the biggest plus about what we're seeing from Sims and Newcomb is that they've dealt with struggles already - unlike Wisler and Blair who both seemed to blow through each level without having to learn to adjust much at all. They seem to have been able to learn that their location and control is far more important than their stuff because their stuff is plenty good enough as is.

Folty's been good enough to stay in the rotation at the MLB level because he finally started to learn that last season, and I think the fact that Newcomb and Sims have struggled before getting a shot is a good thing. They're much better prepared to stick at the back end of the rotation right now than Wisler or Blair have been at any point - so much so that I think Coppy ought to start entertaining offers for the vets as of now. We're not likely to be less-competitive at the MLB level at this point with those two at the back of the rotation rather than Colon and Garcia.
 
1. IF Acuna keeps this up, he will be promoted by this year to AAA, and if he keeps it up there...he'll be in the big leagues next year. I'm not saying I want that, but now that they have figured out the veteran thing doesn't work...they will go the "young and exciting" route.

2. I love inciarte. If there is a Adam Eaton trade out there....why not? If there isn't , then absolutely move Nick or Kemp(pref Kemp)...DPete is waiting in the wings either way.

3. Unless one regresses...the rotation next year (2018) will be Julio, Folty, Weigel, Newk, Sims. The 2019 rotation... many others will likely be ready, so a couple of the group above will be traded. Probably the best time to move Julio at the latest if all is going well.

4. Wisler and Blair will be traded. They gave Wisler his chance and he looked the same. The only way I see Blair getting a chance is if they decide to give Weigel more time or Newk, Sims regress. Either way...neither of the two have the talent to stick compared to our other pitchers and would just be place holders even if performing well. They will both be traded, the only question is if we can get anything. Blair because of the windfall trade is not that big of a deal, but Wisler tanking REALLY hurts.

5. We are at the edge of some (hopefully) exciting times. I wish I could hit a fast forward button to the draft and trade deadline. I just feel like we are spinning our wheels until then. With the exception of rooting a few guys like Dansby Freeman and Folty on....I feel like I'm just watching a team of old guys and placeholders and it's pretty pointless for the most part.
 
Acuna should stay in AA the rest of the year, regardless of his level of success. Then you start him in AAA next year, and if things have gone well in AA and AAA, you bring him up later in the year.
 
There is no reason to pull a Swanson with Acuna. He is going to hit some bumps in the upper levels, and everyone around here will start to sour on him (just like they have with Albies). The Braves will not be contending next year either, so he doesn't need to sniff the MLB level until 2019.

Stick with Markakis in RF until his contract expires after the 2018 season. Nobody is going to give up anything to get him, so trading him has no advantages.

If the Braves are looking to contend in 2019 (meaning they are projected to win 85+ games), having Acuna on the MLB roster from day 1 is defensible in the same way having Heyward on the roster in 2010 was. In that scenario they will control his age 21-26 seasons. The ideal scenario would be to keep him in AAA for 2-3 weeks in 2019 so they control his age 21-27 seasons.

And no, the Braves should not trade Inciarte to make room for Acuna. The Braves goal is to contend from 2018 on, and there is no trade out there involving Inciarte that makes that more likely to happen. Inciarte is a championship-level CFer as long as he isn't mis-cast as a leadoff hitter. He is cheap. He is good. He is controlled through his 20s. He needs to stay.

If the Braves decide to blow it up again after the 2019 season, then he should be traded. If the Allard group of pitching prospects flop like the Blair group did, they may be forced to rebuild again after a complete clean sweep of the FO.
 
clvclv said:
JMO, but the biggest plus about what we're seeing from Sims and Newcomb is that they've dealt with struggles already - unlike Wisler and Blair who both seemed to blow through each level without having to learn to adjust much at all. They seem to have been able to learn that their location and control is far more important than their stuff because their stuff is plenty good enough as is.

Folty's been good enough to stay in the rotation at the MLB level because he finally started to learn that last season, and I think the fact that Newcomb and Sims have struggled before getting a shot is a good thing. They're much better prepared to stick at the back end of the rotation right now than Wisler or Blair have been at any point - so much so that I think Coppy ought to start entertaining offers for the vets as of now. We're not likely to be less-competitive at the MLB level at this point with those two at the back of the rotation rather than Colon and Garcia.
Click to expand...

I agree. And I want Those guys up by the deadline to struggle on this bad team. Get the struggles out and get ready for 18
 
smootness said:
We better not. Replacing Inciarte with Acuna doesn't make us better. Replacing Markakis with Acuna does.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. It depends on the situation IMO and what happens. If you are rebuilding, you have to be ready to take advantage of situations as they arise.

Let's say Milwaukee stays in the hunt through the All-Star break and starts thinking they are real contenders and want to add pitching. The Braves work a deal where they send Teheran and Garcia and get back something like: Brinson, Clark and Phillips. Then, Inciarte might be expendable with Acuna or Brinson playing CF and the other playing RF with Clark and Phillips fighting it out for LF.

Then, let's say the Cubs decide they need a LO CF. The Braves trade Inciarte to the Cubs for OF Eloy Jimenez and C/Inf Victor Caratini.

Under that scenario you would have added 4 well thought of OF to go with Acuna to fill 3 starting slots at the ML level. You could possibly end up with a: Jimenez, Acuna, Brinson OF and shed Inciarte's payroll obligation. Under a scenario like that, I think you would have to consider it.
 
Enscheff said:
There is no reason to pull a Swanson with Acuna. He is going to hit some bumps in the upper levels, and everyone around here will start to sour on him (just like they have with Albies). The Braves will not be contending next year either, so he doesn't need to sniff the MLB level until 2019.

Stick with Markakis in RF until his contract expires after the 2018 season. Nobody is going to give up anything to get him, so trading him has no advantages.

If the Braves are looking to contend in 2019 (meaning they are projected to win 85+ games), having Acuna on the MLB roster from day 1 is defensible in the same way having Heyward on the roster in 2010 was. In that scenario they will control his age 21-26 seasons. The ideal scenario would be to keep him in AAA for 2-3 weeks in 2019 so they control his age 21-27 seasons.

And no, the Braves should not trade Inciarte to make room for Acuna. The Braves goal is to contend from 2018 on, and there is no trade out there involving Inciarte that makes that more likely to happen. Inciarte is a championship-level CFer as long as he isn't mis-cast as a leadoff hitter. He is cheap. He is good. He is controlled through his 20s. He needs to stay.

If the Braves decide to blow it up again after the 2019 season, then he should be traded. If the Allard group of pitching prospects flop like the Blair group did, they may be forced to rebuild again after a complete clean sweep of the FO.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying I want Acuna up...I didn't want Dansby up. You can bet money they will bring him up though for PR. They have a proven record of doing that.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Not necessarily. It depends on the situation IMO and what happens. If you are rebuilding, you have to be ready to take advantage of situations as they arise.

Let's say Milwaukee stays in the hunt through the All-Star break and starts thinking they are real contenders and want to add pitching. The Braves work a deal where they send Teheran and Garcia and get back something like: Brinson, Clark and Phillips. Then, Inciarte might be expendable with Acuna or Brinson playing CF and the other playing RF with Clark and Phillips fighting it out for LF.

Then, let's say the Cubs decide they need a LO CF. The Braves trade Inciarte to the Cubs for OF Eloy Jimenez and C/Inf Victor Caratini.

Under that scenario you would have added 4 well thought of OF to go with Acuna to fill 3 starting slots at the ML level. You could possibly end up with a: Jimenez, Acuna, Brinson OF and shed Inciarte's payroll obligation. Under a scenario like that, I think you would have to consider it.
Click to expand...

NEVER present a challenge to HH... NEVER!!!!!
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Not necessarily. It depends on the situation IMO and what happens. If you are rebuilding, you have to be ready to take advantage of situations as they arise.

Let's say Milwaukee stays in the hunt through the All-Star break and starts thinking they are real contenders and want to add pitching. The Braves work a deal where they send Teheran and Garcia and get back something like: Brinson, Clark and Phillips. Then, Inciarte might be expendable with Acuna or Brinson playing CF and the other playing RF with Clark and Phillips fighting it out for LF.

Then, let's say the Cubs decide they need a LO CF. The Braves trade Inciarte to the Cubs for OF Eloy Jimenez and C/Inf Victor Caratini.

Under that scenario you would have added 4 well thought of OF to go with Acuna to fill 3 starting slots at the ML level. You could possibly end up with a: Jimenez, Acuna, Brinson OF and shed Inciarte's payroll obligation. Under a scenario like that, I think you would have to consider it.
Click to expand...

Goodness, man. I didn't mean that we should never, under any possible scenario, trade Inciarte. Obviously if we can trade Colon and Dickey for Trout, then we should probably go ahead and deal Inciarte.

Your trades aren't remotely plausible, to be honest. But even in that scenario, you still don't deal Inciarte until you're confident you have an entire OF worth of young guys ready. Clark isn't close to ready, and neither is Jimenez. And there are questions about Brinson playing CF.

But anyway, I just meant that under no circumstances should we trade Inciarte to make room for Acuna in CF because we already have Markakis and Kemp in the corners. Inciarte is an answer, you replace the others with Acuna if the time comes. Inciarte's payroll obligation is a positive for him, not a negative.
 
smootness said:
Goodness, man. I didn't mean that we should never, under any possible scenario, trade Inciarte. Obviously if we can trade Colon and Dickey for Trout, then we should probably go ahead and deal Inciarte.

Your trades aren't remotely plausible, to be honest. But even in that scenario, you still don't deal Inciarte until you're confident you have an entire OF worth of young guys ready. Clark isn't close to ready, and neither is Jimenez. And there are questions about Brinson playing CF.

But anyway, I just meant that under no circumstances should we trade Inciarte to make room for Acuna in CF because we already have Markakis and Kemp in the corners. Inciarte is an answer, you replace the others with Acuna if the time comes. Inciarte's payroll obligation is a positive for him, not a negative.
Click to expand...

Obviously if we can trade Colon and Dickey for Trout: I understand that you aren't accusing me of advocating Colon and Dickey for Trout. What you are doing is more subtle. You throw an absurdity out there to place in the minds of other readers as they read through the rest of the response. It's massaging the thought process of others by including an absurdity that has nothing at all to do with the post being responded to but is there to set the tone of the following stuff. Guilt by association.

Your trades aren't remotely plausible, to be honest: Really? You don't think that Teheran (and his contract) plus LHP Garcia are worth an A prospect (Brinson)and two B's (Clark and Phillips)? Brinson is ranked as the #15 prospect by MLB and Clark and Phillips are both outside the top 100. And you don't think the Braves could get that for two pitchers, one who's controlled long term and is a solid #2? It's not like I'm saying Teheran and Garcia for Trout.

Then Inciarte for Jimenez and Caratini? After what the WS got for Eaton?

The first refuge of a rascal is to retreat to calling into question the plausibility of a trade (without providing an alternative that better expresses what is remotely plausible) because they don't want to consider the possibility of having to give up someone they don't want to give up but don't really have a logical argument.

you still don't deal Inciarte until you're confident you have an entire OF worth of young guys ready: I disagree with that completely. You trade Inciarte if (and only if) you think that the trade (or potential of the trade) outweighs the contribution of Inciarte. You could be wrong and end up with fools gold OR Inciarte could play horribly and not justify his extension. The difference is probability. Inciarte is likely a more known quantity and is therefore more safe. And, if you are a team in competition for something (or at least close) then you probably don't take the risk. Since the Braves aren't that team right now then the risk is different. The Braves kept Dale Murphy because he was known and they thought he put people in the seats but his value to a rebuilding team was in his trade value and the Braves missed out on that.

I just meant that under no circumstances should we trade Inciarte to make room for Acuna in CF because we already have Markakis and Kemp in the corners.: I can agree with that. Trading Inciarte (or keeping him) should have nothing to do with Kemp or Markakis or the presence of Acuna. However, IF Acuna can play CF AND he is relatively close, then trading Inciarte on his own merits becomes a possibility IF the right scenarios are found where him going makes the team better.

Inciarte's payroll obligation is a positive for him, not a negative.: That makes no sense unless you add the qualifier that his payroll obligation is a positive on a relative basis. It's not like he's being paid ML minimum. His contract is likely good assuming his performance holds up. But, if you could replace him with a player who was just as good or better AND was making ML minimum and then marginal raises over the next 3-4 years then Inciarte's contract would not be a positive.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Really? You don't think that Teheran (and his contract) plus LHP Garcia are worth an A prospect (Brinson)and two B's (Clark and Phillips)? Brinson is ranked as the #15 prospect by MLB and Clark and Phillips are both outside the top 100. And you don't think the Braves could get that for two pitchers, one who's controlled long term and is a solid #2? It's not like I'm saying Teheran and Garcia for Trout.
Click to expand...

If we were able to get a top 15 prospect and 2 B prospects for Julio he would have been moved last year. Julio sure as hell isn't getting us a top 15 now after his velocity has dropped and he's sucking. Garcia has very little value at all. Throwing two average players together doesn't net you top prospects.

Eaton is quite a bit more valuable than Ender, no chance the Cubs give up Eloy for him now that Eloy has broken out. We might have been able to pull that trade off before last season (and it was something I was hoping we'd explore before Fowler resigned with them), but no way now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top