Viz and Teheran listed as top trade candidates

Horsehide Harry said:
Concern with the win total in 2017 implicitly means that the rebuild is done.
Click to expand...

I think you always have to be looking to add assets that can help you...whether in the next season or the future. Acquiring some players this off-season that can help in 2017 does not mean you stop adding assets that can help beyond 2017. It seems to me unwise to get locked into a mode where you favor trades that say add to value in 2019 or 2020 but subtract from value in other years. It is better to look at value without favoring a particular window. Now there are exceptions. At the deadline, a contending team will be a bit more willing to trade from the future. Or a team stuck in a hopeless situation (as we are this year) will discount the rest of the season. But generally I think you want to evaluate trades and other moves based upon overall value without giving a great deal more weight to a particular window. There is too much randomness from season to season to make the commitment years ahead of time to go for it in a particular window.

I know from a previous discussion that you think the pie or was it the turkey will be "just right" to take from the oven in 2018. I think that degree of precision just doesn't exist given how much random factors affect a team's record in a particular season. We might be good in 2017, bad in 2018, good in 2019, bad in 2020, good in 2021. Or some similar impossible to predict pattern.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But, if you move Teheran and/or Freeman then the whole improvement to 75-80 wins in 2017 goes out the window, even with the addition of non premier FA for 3B and the OF. So, saying the win total is a priority for 2017 is saying that Teheran and Freeman stay, which means that you don't give THE RIGHT RETURN a chance to happen. Essentially you set the bar so high that you know it won't happen.

Even keeping Teheran and Freeman, but subtracting Inciarte, Viz, Markakis, Flowers, etc. means that any offseason FA additions likely only replace what you traded.

Concern with the win total in 2017 implicitly means that the rebuild is done. And it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. At least in the case of JT anyways. We have some good depth at starting pitching and could always sign someone like Gio Gonzalez or Jeremy Hellickson in the offseason to help sure up the rotation and give us a good vet for the younger guys. And any return for JT should include a high end MLB ready hitter as well.
 
nsacpi said:
I think you always have to be looking to add assets that can help you...whether in the next season or the future. Acquiring some players this off-season that can help in 2017 does not mean you stop adding assets that can help beyond 2017. It seems to me unwise to get locked into a mode where you favor trades that say add to value in 2019 or 2020 but subtract from value in other years. It is better to look at value without favoring a particular window. Now there are exceptions. At the deadline, a contending team will be a bit more willing to trade from the future. Or a team stuck in a hopeless situation (as we are this year) will discount the rest of the season. But generally I think you want to evaluate trades and other moves based upon overall value without giving a great deal more weight to a particular window. There is too much randomness from season to season to make the commitment years ahead of time to go for it in a particular window.

I know from a previous discussion that you think the pie or was it the turkey will be "just right" to take from the oven in 2018. I think that degree of precision just doesn't exist given how much random factors affect a team's record in a particular season. We might be good in 2017, bad in 2018, good in 2019, bad in 2020, good in 2021. Or some similar impossible to predict pattern.
Click to expand...

Randomness may not be random at all but cause and effect.

I advocate making moves with 2018 and beyond in mind and accept whatever record may be earned in 2017. It's always possible that things don't turn out right. However, without an ability to go buy a lot of FA talent, which I don't think is in the cards for the Braves, then you have to have an overwhelming package of young talent that ripens at or about the same time. Else you end up in the yo-yo effect, good one year, bad the next, go for it one year, trade everyone the next much like what Oakland does. It's also what happened to teams like Pittsburgh and KC. Those teams had good players come up to play for their franchises during their long drought BUT never had enough until they had a string of very, very bad years back to back to back that led to them filling the pantry to the point where they had an overwhelming flood of young talent. Of course, since they are small market teams, they won't be able to maintain. KC has already started their decline. The Pirates look to have done a better overall job but don't have the hardware that KC has and I wonder how long Pirate fans will be content as brides maids.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Randomness may not be random at all but cause and effect.

I advocate making moves with 2018 and beyond in mind and accept whatever record may be earned in 2017. It's always possible that things don't turn out right. However, without an ability to go buy a lot of FA talent, which I don't think is in the cards for the Braves, then you have to have an overwhelming package of young talent that ripens at or about the same time. Else you end up in the yo-yo effect, good one year, bad the next, go for it one year, trade everyone the next much like what Oakland does. It's also what happened to teams like Pittsburgh and KC. Those teams had good players come up to play for their franchises during their long drought BUT never had enough until they had a string of very, very bad years back to back to back that led to them filling the pantry to the point where they had an overwhelming flood of young talent. Of course, since they are small market teams, they won't be able to maintain. KC has already started their decline. The Pirates look to have done a better overall job but don't have the hardware that KC has and I wonder how long Pirate fans will be content as brides maids.
Click to expand...

I think your statement that concern about the 2017 record means the rebuild is over greatly overstates it. Signing some veterans who will help the team in 2017 does not mean that we stop adding assets that will help us in future years. I don't think for example signing Prado to play third means we no longer are open to moving guys like Freeman, Teheran, Inciarte or Vizcaino. One does not preclude the other. Indeed, if we sign a veteran pitcher it might be with the idea of making it easier to move Teheran. Just like last year the signings of Grilli and Johnson were partly done with the idea in mind that Kimbrel might be moved.

Interesting that you mention KC. They did NOT empty the pantry of major league talent in their lean years, keeping a very valuable player through those lean years who was also there for their team when they made the world series the last two years.

I think Pittsburgh is playing it right in trying to achieve a long competitive window without going all out in a particular year or two. As some point lady luck will smile on them in the post-season.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Randomness may not be random at all but cause and effect.

I advocate making moves with 2018 and beyond in mind and accept whatever record may be earned in 2017. It's always possible that things don't turn out right. However, without an ability to go buy a lot of FA talent, which I don't think is in the cards for the Braves, then you have to have an overwhelming package of young talent that ripens at or about the same time. Else you end up in the yo-yo effect, good one year, bad the next, go for it one year, trade everyone the next much like what Oakland does. It's also what happened to teams like Pittsburgh and KC. Those teams had good players come up to play for their franchises during their long drought BUT never had enough until they had a string of very, very bad years back to back to back that led to them filling the pantry to the point where they had an overwhelming flood of young talent. Of course, since they are small market teams, they won't be able to maintain. KC has already started their decline. The Pirates look to have done a better overall job but don't have the hardware that KC has and I wonder how long Pirate fans will be content as brides maids.
Click to expand...

I'd hardly say KC is in decline, and at 112 million in payroll they certainly are spending a decent chunk of change. I mean no team stays on top forever, but they still have a very young team with most of their core under 30. Bringing back Gordon shows a willingness to spend money on their home grown talent, which bodes well for resigning more of the core long term.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But, if you move Teheran and/or Freeman then the whole improvement to 75-80 wins in 2017 goes out the window, even with the addition of non premier FA for 3B and the OF. So, saying the win total is a priority for 2017 is saying that Teheran and Freeman stay, which means that you don't give THE RIGHT RETURN a chance to happen. Essentially you set the bar so high that you know it won't happen.

Even keeping Teheran and Freeman, but subtracting Inciarte, Viz, Markakis, Flowers, etc. means that any offseason FA additions likely only replace what you traded.

Concern with the win total in 2017 implicitly means that the rebuild is done. And it clearly isn't.
Click to expand...

Freeman isn't being traded, and they would never get fair value for him if they did, all they'd do is add more low level prospects and open a need at 1b. And we aren't getting Moncada for Teheran so moving him would not maximize his value either.

you seem to think that there is either willy wonka wonderland returns or the rebuild is over and a failure. This is not realistic nor practical thinking.
 
bravos4evr said:
They won't do that though. They will buy at least 2 major pieces this offseason because they worry about the casual fanbase who don't understand rebuilds. They may not grab Cespedes or Desmond, but they WILL sign a catcher and I bet a 3b as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a veteran pitcher added nor a trade for a power hitting corner OF bat.

They can do these things, post 75-80 wins next year AND still have plenty of space for any future additions. It's not like having too much talent suddenly becomes a problem, there is ALWAYS a spot that needs improving and if you have too much talent in one area you can generally find a spot for it on another team or internally.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, they will sign some veterans to reasonable, relatively short term deals like they did in 1991.

I don't see them breaking the bank in Ian Desmond or being the winning bidder for cespedes though.

I don't think they will sacrifice flexibility to appease casual fans. I just haven't seen that much indication they are that concerned.
 
Nothing really new here, but another update:

In the event the Braves shop right-hander Julio Teheran, one major league source told Cafardo, “The Braves don’t want anyone’s B- list. It’s got to be at the top of anyone’s prospect list, and it just looks complicated.” As a strong, in-his-prime performer who’s controllable through 2020 on an extremely team-friendly contract, Teheran is one of rebuilding Atlanta’s best assets.
 
CJ9 said:
Nothing really new here, but another update:

In the event the Braves shop right-hander Julio Teheran, one major league source told Cafardo, “The Braves don’t want anyone’s B- list. It’s got to be at the top of anyone’s prospect list, and it just looks complicated.” As a strong, in-his-prime performer who’s controllable through 2020 on an extremely team-friendly contract, Teheran is one of rebuilding Atlanta’s best assets.
Click to expand...

Cant say i disagree, either pony up or no deal.
 
Southcack77 said:
Hopefully, they will sign some veterans to reasonable, relatively short term deals like they did in 1991.

I don't see them breaking the bank in Ian Desmond or being the winning bidder for cespedes though.

I don't think they will sacrifice flexibility to appease casual fans. I just haven't seen that much indication they are that concerned.
Click to expand...

I don't think they're going to get Desmond or Cespedes either, but they will look in to them.

I do think they're going to go on a bit of a spree and will be working hard to sell the team and complex this offseason. Between the hassle of Turner Field, the fact we've been tanking, and trading off all 'Name" assets there hasn't been much to sell. We won't handcuff ourselves, but we're going to slap some lipstick on this pig and see if we can get lucky.
 
Jim Bowden just posted an article about players in the Futures Game who could be traded. The first player is Benintendi. He said they've told teams so far he's not available, but they'd have to give him up for a top of rotation starter they control for multiple years, and he actually singled out Teheran as an example.

The third player on the list is Indians OF Clint Frazier. I really like him and think he's perfect for us, but there's probably not much of a match since their rotation is loaded and they need bats.
 
Jeffress is a pretty decent comp to Vizcaino. Both have 3 years of control after this year. Jeffress more of an MLB track record, Vizcaino with a little more dominating stuff. I'd guess that Vizcaino or Jeffress would command about half the return that Ken Giles did, give or take.

[TW]752489498034876416[/TW]
 
This is my biggest fear in our hope that you can just trade pitchers for hitters. From Rosenthal's column:

"Younger players are drawing more attention in trade discussions because so many teams are reluctant to part with prospects who are closer to the majors."

It's why the Bregmans, Moncadas and Benintendis of the world are borderline impossible to pry away. Young, cheap hitters are extremely valuable.
 
CJ9 said:
This is my biggest fear in our hope that you can just trade pitchers for hitters. From Rosenthal's column:

"Younger players are drawing more attention in trade discussions because so many teams are reluctant to part with prospects who are closer to the majors."

It's why the Bregmans, Moncadas and Benintendis of the world are borderline impossible to pry away. Young, cheap hitters are extremely valuable.
Click to expand...

Young hitters are valuable, but pitching is as well. The Sox and Rangers are finding that out now. You have all those young hitting prospects, but you're losing ground because you don't have pitching depth.

When you look at the Cubs you think of Bryant and Schwarber whom they drafted, but Rizzo and Russell came via trading pitching.
 
Chico said:
Young hitters are valuable, but pitching is as well. The Sox and Rangers are finding that out now. You have all those young hitting prospects, but you're losing ground because you don't have pitching depth.

When you look at the Cubs you think of Bryant and Schwarber whom they drafted, but Rizzo and Russell came via trading pitching.
Click to expand...

Agreed that both our valuable... but there seems to be far more pitchers than hitters of high quality. Add to that, the bust rate of pitchers is higher - which work against their value bc it's tough to convince a team to trade a surer asset (hitter) for a riskier asset (pitcher)... even if they would be equally valuable in the big leagues
 
sturg33 said:
Agreed that both our valuable... but there seems to be far more pitchers than hitters of high quality. Add to that, the bust rate of pitchers is higher - which work against their value bc it's tough to convince a team to trade a surer asset (hitter) for a riskier asset (pitcher)... even if they would be equally valuable in the big leagues
Click to expand...

I think it goes both ways though. Because they're more likely to bust and/or get injured, you need more of them. They're learning right now. They were trotting out Sean O'Sullivan, and now he's hurt. Their offense is going bananas, but their lack of pitching depth is sure to hold them back. You can't ever figure to get this kind of offensive production again. They don't have pitching depth in the majors or minors, so they're going to need to sign a bunch or trade for some. there's no way around it.
 
yeezus said:
I think it goes both ways though. Because they're more likely to bust and/or get injured, you need more of them. They're learning right now. They were trotting out Sean O'Sullivan, and now he's hurt. Their offense is going bananas, but their lack of pitching depth is sure to hold them back. You can't ever figure to get this kind of offensive production again. They don't have pitching depth in the majors or minors, so they're going to need to sign a bunch or trade for some. there's no way around it.
Click to expand...

Agreed... you need a surplus of pitching to be sure. But that means it will require multiple impact pitchers for one impact hitter... at least in my opinion.

I.E... a Bregman is worth more than Newcomb
 
sturg33 said:
Agreed... you need a surplus of pitching to be sure. But that means it will require multiple impact pitchers for one impact hitter... at least in my opinion.

I.E... a Bregman is worth more than Newcomb
Click to expand...

But is he worth more than a Urias?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top