Trading Inciarte

thewupk said:
That's not even stating the obvious. Maddux was the best pitcher in baseball and the Braves were a great team.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Completely different situation. First, comparing Ender to Maddux is just absurd. Second, ownership, attendance, success, everything was different for the Braves then. Third, that team was contending at the highest level, this team is working for a .500 record.

It's not about where you are now. The Braves are now a 72 win team. It's where you are when you have enough young talent and financial flexibility to really contend. Considering that apparently financial flexibility has been destroyed by bad contracts (Kemp and Muk) during the rebuild and by misjudged attendance figures and by Coppygate (in all forms), I think most would say that truly contending has been pushed back at least a year and probably more.

So, it's not about Inciarte's value today to the team today. It's about his value in 2020 either as a player for the team then or as value from the result of a trade made in 2017/18. Sure, trading him probably costs the record 2-4 wins in 2018 but does that matter more than the value in 2020? Is 81-81 better than 78-84 in the big scheme of things if trading him now means a chance at 90-95 wins in 2020 instead of 82?
 
Everybody understands the "value" point, but what you guys that want to trade EVERY current asset the franchise has ignore is the fact that that also effects that team you're building for the future as well, even though it's indirectly. The reason the Pirates, Padres, Marlins, et al who continuously run minor league talent out there while promising "the future" without giving your average fan a reason to come out to the park at least a few times a year is that they don't have enough money to go get those "missing pieces" when it's time to. The "haves" (teams that have to pay into profit sharing) are more than willing to throw you a few bucks to keep you afloat because they need somebody to play - they're not dumb enough to make that pool big enough so the "have nots" can also compete against them when it's time to bid on the Machados and Harpers of the world.

Even your "built from within" payroll increases every year - the myth of "sustainable success" will always remain a myth unless you can afford to supplement your young talent with players who are actually paid MLB salaries at some point. Competitive windows for these perpetual rebuilders will always be 2-4 years if/when the stars align like they did for the Royals, then you start over when the Hollands/Davises/Hosmers/Moustakases/Cains realize this is their last chance to go get the money to take care of their families. The days of owners like Ted, The Boss and Mr. Ilitch losing their *sses for years because they want to bring home a winner are long gone. Liberty's not going to let that shiny new stadium sit at 25% capacity for the next 5 years and then suddenly say "sure you can have another $50 million to go get one more SP and a 2B now that you say you're ready to win".

The Braves' run of extended success will never be seen again.
 
I highly... highly doubt Inciarte is going anywhere.

BUT... if he does, we have to go after a legit TOR arm or 3B.
 
clvclv said:
Everybody understands the "value" point, but what you guys that want to trade EVERY current asset the franchise has ignore is the fact that that also effects that team you're building for the future as well, even though it's indirectly. The reason the Pirates, Padres, Marlins, et al who continuously run minor league talent out there while promising "the future" without giving your average fan a reason to come out to the park at least a few times a year is that they don't have enough money to go get those "missing pieces" when it's time to. The "haves" (teams that have to pay into profit sharing) are more than willing to throw you a few bucks to keep you afloat because they need somebody to play - they're not dumb enough to make that pool big enough so the "have nots" can also compete against them when it's time to bid on the Machados and Harpers of the world.

Even your "built from within" payroll increases every year - the myth of "sustainable success" will always remain a myth unless you can afford to supplement your young talent with players who are actually paid MLB salaries at some point. Competitive windows for these perpetual rebuilders will always be 2-4 years if/when the stars align like they did for the Royals, then you start over when the Hollands/Davises/Hosmers/Moustakases/Cains realize this is their last chance to go get the money to take care of their families. The days of owners like Ted, The Boss and Mr. Ilitch losing their *sses for years because they want to bring home a winner are long gone. Liberty's not going to let that shiny new stadium sit at 25% capacity for the next 5 years and then suddenly say "sure you can have another $50 million to go get one more SP and a 2B now that you say you're ready to win".

The Braves' run of extended success will never be seen again.
Click to expand...

rebuilds pretty much take five years -- unless you spend a ton on the free agent market and other assets in trade.
 
Southcack77 said:
rebuilds pretty much take five years -- unless you spend a ton on the free agent market and other assets in trade.
Click to expand...

What does the length of time rebuilds take have to do with what I said?

The point is that no matter how long you take, if you can't somehow sustain fan interest during those periods no one's suddenly going to hand management bundles of money when you need to supplement the young talent you're building from within with. If you continuously roll out inferior talent for a 5 year period in a shiny new publicly-funded state of the art facility with little reason to visit the area other than to hang out at the bars and restaurants, corporate ownership is never going to suddenly bump payroll when management tells them "we're ready now - our window is opening".

If you don't keep at least a few fan-favorites to get *sses in the seats during your rebuilding period, payroll flexibility isn't suddenly going to appear and sellouts aren't going to magically happen after you've told fans "come back in five years".
 
clvclv said:
What does the length of time rebuilds take have to do with what I said?

The point is that no matter how long you take, if you can't somehow sustain fan interest during those periods no one's suddenly going to hand management bundles of money when you need to supplement the young talent you're building from within with. If you continuously roll out inferior talent for a 5 year period in a shiny new publicly-funded state of the art facility with little reason to visit the area other than to hang out at the bars and restaurants, corporate ownership is never going to suddenly bump payroll when management tells them "we're ready now - our window is opening".

If you don't keep at least a few fan-favorites to get *sses in the seats during your rebuilding period, payroll flexibility isn't suddenly going to appear and sellouts aren't going to magically happen after you've told fans "come back in five years".
Click to expand...

Houston Astros
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Houston Astros
Click to expand...

You mean the same Astros that received $17,355,191 from Detroit to take Verlander, $11 million from the Yankees to take McCann, are paying a perennial MVP candidate $4 million a year who signed a ridiculously team-friendly extension (which every one of you say Albies or Acuna WON'T), and are set to lose their #2 SP and to lose their RBI leader (Marwin Gonzalez) to free-agency following 2018???

Sure looks like they're about to rip off 13 more Division Championships to me.
 
clvclv said:
You mean the same Astros that received $17,355,191 from Detroit to take Verlander, $11 million from the Yankees to take McCann, are paying a perennial MVP candidate $4 million a year who signed a ridiculously team-friendly extension (which every one of you say Albies or Acuna WON'T), and are set to lose their #2 SP and to lose their RBI leader (Marwin Gonzalez) to free-agency following 2018???

Sure looks like they're about to rip off 13 more Division Championships to me.
Click to expand...

Why do I bother?

I guess it's good to ask that question from time to time. It helps remind me that I shouldn't bother. A rock is a rock no matter how much you try to educate it.
 
clvclv said:
What does the length of time rebuilds take have to do with what I said?

The point is that no matter how long you take, if you can't somehow sustain fan interest during those periods no one's suddenly going to hand management bundles of money when you need to supplement the young talent you're building from within with. If you continuously roll out inferior talent for a 5 year period in a shiny new publicly-funded state of the art facility with little reason to visit the area other than to hang out at the bars and restaurants, corporate ownership is never going to suddenly bump payroll when management tells them "we're ready now - our window is opening".

If you don't keep at least a few fan-favorites to get *sses in the seats during your rebuilding period, payroll flexibility isn't suddenly going to appear and sellouts aren't going to magically happen after you've told fans "come back in five years".
Click to expand...

I think history shows that ownership absolutely forks over the money during the window of contention. Look at the Royals. Look at the Marlins.

I think people probably over blow the importance of what fans think in the moment. Fans are never patient and they always bitch when you lose. And they pretty much always come back when you win. At least anywhere that people care about the sport.
 
Southcack77 said:
I think history shows that ownership absolutely forks over the money during the window of contention. Look at the Royals. Look at the Marlins.

I think people probably over blow the importance of what fans think in the moment. Fans are never patient and they always bitch when you lose. And they pretty much always come back when you win. At least anywhere that people care about the sport.
Click to expand...

The point that many others have made (correctly IMO) is that it's awfully tough to expect that type of quick cash infusion in Atlanta these days given the fact that you're dealing with corporate ownership rather than an individual (who was a fan to begin with) that is easier to sway when public sentiment is involved.

Don't get me wrong, I think we've seen that additional money will be approved in some instances when justifiable (signing Santana when Medlen and Beachy went down, for example), but it's not like it's going to be as "easy" as it was for DMGM to go to Mr. Glass when he was caught up in the excitement every time he left his house and got out of the car.

As for the fans "coming back when you win", the city of Atlanta has a pretty long history of proving you wrong there - the "fan support" for the seasons the Braves called Turner Field home during The Run were...

1997 - 86.25% capacity (partially due to shiny new stadium effect)
1998 - 84.68% capacity
1999 - 81.78% capacity
2000 - 80.52% capacity
2001 - 70.29% capacity
2002 - 64.82% capacity
2003 - 59.78% capacity
2004 - 57.95% capacity
2005 - 62.77% capacity

They won Division Titles in every one of those seasons with payrolls that consistently increased each year. Do you really expect corporate ownership to run throwing money at a situation like that - especially when the majority of stakeholders with the largest shares hardly ever even visit the city?

(*** For comparison's sake, KC drew 57.02% capacity to Kauffman Stadium in 2013 (the season BEFORE they made it to the Series the first time), and followed that up with capacities of 63.72% in 2014, 88.22% in 2015, 83.31% in 2016, and 72.32% this season. Their attendance was constantly higher during their run while in contention.)
 
He did say anywhere where people care about the sport. It's been obvious for awhile now that Atlanta is not a baseball town.
 
clvclv said:
The point that many others have made (correctly IMO) is that it's awfully tough to expect that type of quick cash infusion in Atlanta these days given the fact that you're dealing with corporate ownership rather than an individual (who was a fan to begin with) that is easier to sway when public sentiment is involved.

Don't get me wrong, I think we've seen that additional money will be approved in some instances when justifiable (signing Santana when Medlen and Beachy went down, for example), but it's not like it's going to be as "easy" as it was for DMGM to go to Mr. Glass when he was caught up in the excitement every time he left his house and got out of the car.

As for the fans "coming back when you win", the city of Atlanta has a pretty long history of proving you wrong there - the "fan support" for the seasons the Braves called Turner Field home during The Run were...

1997 - 86.25% capacity (partially due to shiny new stadium effect)
1998 - 84.68% capacity
1999 - 81.78% capacity
2000 - 80.52% capacity
2001 - 70.29% capacity
2002 - 64.82% capacity
2003 - 59.78% capacity
2004 - 57.95% capacity
2005 - 62.77% capacity

They won Division Titles in every one of those seasons with payrolls that consistently increased each year. Do you really expect corporate ownership to run throwing money at a situation like that - especially when the majority of stakeholders with the largest shares hardly ever even visit the city?

(*** For comparison's sake, KC drew 57.02% capacity to Kauffman Stadium in 2013 (the season BEFORE they made it to the Series the first time), and followed that up with capacities of 63.72% in 2014, 88.22% in 2015, 83.31% in 2016, and 72.32% this season. Their attendance was constantly higher during their run while in contention.)
Click to expand...

1. I think the counterfactual we are discussing is what would have happened if the Braves had traded every current asset for prospects and been perfectly content with losing 100+ games a year for four or five years. Your position seems to be that the fans would not come back. I think they probably would have to at least the same degree they had before and that's consistent across baseball. It's certainly true that Braves attendance lagged after the novelty of the Braves being good wore off and especially after they became a team that didn't even have a championship character on paper. But that's not really what we were talking about.

2. The counterfactual regarding payroll is a one where the Braves traded every salary for prospects and then reached a point where the young cheap core was contending. I would expect an attendance boost and plenty of payroll room to accommodate that.

As it is, I totally understand why the front office was unwilling to tear it completely down. It's difficult from a business perspective to do that, particularly when you are bilking the tax payers for a new stadium. Did they not do it because they didn't think the fans would ever come back? No, I don't think that's the reason. I don't think that's really true.
 
So supposedly a couple of Cubs beat guys say Cubs are asking about Inciarte and our minor league pitching.
 
Chico said:
So supposedly a couple of Cubs beat guys say Cubs are asking about Inciarte and our minor league pitching.
Click to expand...

AA basically just said 2018 is another lost season. If that’s the case, trading Inciarte might be the best plan. The return has to be significant though. I’m talking Happ as the centerpiece.
 
Cubs farm is all but gutted.

A move for Ender and pitching would cost some combo of Schwarber, Baez, Russell, Happ whoever they want to move.
 
I bet the Cubs wish they had held onto Candelario. Avila's a FA and they left Wilson off the NCLS roster. Maybe Wilson rebounds, but the Cubs could have used Candelario this winter to better advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top