Viz and Teheran listed as top trade candidates

SUPPOSEDLY, the Braves have received several calls about Lucas Harrell.. Which, i find hard to believe. BUT, if true.. It shows the desperation for decent pitching around the league. Its debatable if young pitching is more valuable than young hitting. There are cases to be made for both. At some point though, these teams with young hitting are going to have to give it up to get the young pitching everyone seems so desperate for. If you want Teheran, pony up. Otherwise, gamble on the Lucas Harrell's of the world. Personally, if i'm a contender, i dont want Harrell even mentioned as a playoff game starter.. but thats just me. Have to give to get at some point..
 
Burnedstang said:
SUPPOSEDLY, the Braves have received several calls about Lucas Harrell.. Which, i find hard to believe. BUT, if true.. It shows the desperation for decent pitching around the league. Its debatable if young pitching is more valuable than young hitting. There are cases to be made for both. At some point though, these teams with young hitting are going to have to give it up to get the young pitching everyone seems so desperate for. If you want Teheran, pony up. Otherwise, gamble on the Lucas Harrell's of the world. Personally, if i'm a contender, i dont want Harrell even mentioned as a playoff game starter.. but thats just me. Have to give to get at some point..
Click to expand...

most likely a Bud Norris type deal. a team wants a guy to fill in until other pitchers are healthy. then Harrell goes to the pen. this isn't a move to make a push deep into the playoffs, but a move to help a team stay in the playoff push.. TEXAS anyone..

**I still say hold him and see what we have. if he busts out.. no big deal. He is not going to get a big return.
 
I agree it would be a Bud Norris type return, if not less for Harrell.. Point is, if these teams are serious about a playoff run, i.e. Texas or Boston who clearly need pitching upgrades, Teheran should be their main target and they SHOULD have no problem dealing bats to get him. At best, Harrell is a serviceable starter that might have a little lightning in him to make a few solid starts and bandaid up the glaring holes of these teams. But even if he's moved to the pen, he's not a pickup that adds a ton of value once they get to the playoffs. Especially for someone like Boston who is looking to win this season.
 
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...

There is the minor advantage with pitching prospects of being able to carry five starting pitchers whereas you can only carry one SS,C, etc. As soon as you move a position player off their premium position, they immediately become less valuable.

I don't think it bridges the value gap, but it narrows it IMO.
 
bravesfanMatt said:
there is no answer.

Braves would value Bregman more than Big U. (maybe)

Red sox would value Big U more than Bregman.

Astros... I have no idea.. that too would be interesting answer

.
Click to expand...

I bet they would. They have a "problem" since Bregman's two best positions are 2B/SS and I don't think they want to move Correa off SS just yet. Having Urias would alleviate that.
 
nsacpi said:
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.
Click to expand...

But that's the point. KC didn't maximize the value of their ML talent (I am supposing here but think it a good supposition) and their "rebuild" took almost a decade to achieve. They were horrible year after year after year. Moore gets credit for turning things around, and he certainly was a big part of it, but the core of the KC team were high pick draftees taken from 2005-2008, give or take a little.

Now, they are a year or two away from losing Hosmer and Moustakas, Wade Davis, Lorenzo Cain, Hochevar, Escobar, Duffy, Morales, Volquez, Vargas.

They have two guys on MLB's top 100 list with one being an over-rated 2B/SS who is getting some mileage out of his legacy name (Mondesi) and has bust or limited value, written all over him and a pitcher with health problems. I would say that their farm is easily bottom third in the league and mat actually be bottom 5 at this point.

KC will keep some of the guys listed above but I don't think they will keep Hosmer or Moustakas or Davis (assuming health). And yes, they ARE spending more but they will never be a large market team. I think they know they have a window and are spending to win while they can, but will tear down and rebuild when the bottom falls out. Their highest paid player is a 32 YO who is currently hitting .207 and will be on their books through 2019 with a $4M cherry for 2020 (but hey, he plays defense). That bit of sentimentality is going to cost them. Arguably their best current pitcher, Kennedy, is 31 and signed to a big contract through 2020 at about $16.5M. Even assuming that both those guys remain at least useful, they still will account for about $37M per year out of the payroll through at least 2019 or about 30% of the payroll as it currently stands which is probably about as high as it can go so as the record declines and the payroll falls those two make up a higher percentage of the payroll paid likely for diminishing returns.

I think they are headed for a #3 or #4 place finish within their division this year with about the same next year and a significant decline after that.

But they did get the ring, which is what you play for.

Pittsburgh is a different story in that they have been close but never decided to "go for it." They have largely been working off the assumption that they can generate a WS winner with home grown guys. And that might work. But so far it hasn't. I think they have a chance to be relevant longer than KC because they have been more aggressive in trying to sign their young guys to long term deals. Their farm is also in much better shape. But, if they start having young guys who go through arbitration and want to be FA, then they are probably doomed because they won't spend to keep them all and unless they are really lucky (and good) they will have a harder time keeping the farm anywhere near as good as it has been.
 
but no plan, no matter how brilliant guarantees a world series win in the double wild card era. all a team can do is make the playoffs, after that it's luck, hit sequencing and winning 3 series in a row.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
But that's the point. KC didn't maximize the value of their ML talent (I am supposing here but think it a good supposition) and their "rebuild" took almost a decade to achieve. They were horrible year after year after year. Moore gets credit for turning things around, and he certainly was a big part of it, but the core of the KC team were high pick draftees taken from 2005-2008, give or take a little.

Now, they are a year or two away from losing Hosmer and Moustakas, Wade Davis, Lorenzo Cain, Hochevar, Escobar, Duffy, Morales, Volquez, Vargas.

They have two guys on MLB's top 100 list with one being an over-rated 2B/SS who is getting some mileage out of his legacy name (Mondesi) and has bust or limited value, written all over him and a pitcher with health problems. I would say that their farm is easily bottom third in the league and mat actually be bottom 5 at this point.

KC will keep some of the guys listed above but I don't think they will keep Hosmer or Moustakas or Davis (assuming health). And yes, they ARE spending more but they will never be a large market team. I think they know they have a window and are spending to win while they can, but will tear down and rebuild when the bottom falls out. Their highest paid player is a 32 YO who is currently hitting .207 and will be on their books through 2019 with a $4M cherry for 2020 (but hey, he plays defense). That bit of sentimentality is going to cost them. Arguably their best current pitcher, Kennedy, is 31 and signed to a big contract through 2020 at about $16.5M. Even assuming that both those guys remain at least useful, they still will account for about $37M per year out of the payroll through at least 2019 or about 30% of the payroll as it currently stands which is probably about as high as it can go so as the record declines and the payroll falls those two make up a higher percentage of the payroll paid likely for diminishing returns.

I think they are headed for a #3 or #4 place finish within their division this year with about the same next year and a significant decline after that.

But they did get the ring, which is what you play for.

Pittsburgh is a different story in that they have been close but never decided to "go for it." They have largely been working off the assumption that they can generate a WS winner with home grown guys. And that might work. But so far it hasn't. I think they have a chance to be relevant longer than KC because they have been more aggressive in trying to sign their young guys to long term deals. Their farm is also in much better shape. But, if they start having young guys who go through arbitration and want to be FA, then they are probably doomed because they won't spend to keep them all and unless they are really lucky (and good) they will have a harder time keeping the farm anywhere near as good as it has been.
Click to expand...

KC was in this same position in 2014 and made the WS. They are completely still in the race for a wild card (if not the division). I'd hardly say they are "headed for 3rd or 4th place."

Teams will always spend as long as they are winning. As long as KC is winning, I'd wager that they'll continue spending money. They have been savvy on their FA pickups in recent years as well, getting very good value on mid tier free agents like Guthrie, Kennedy, Morales, and Volquez.
 
Carp said:
KC was in this same position in 2014 and made the WS. They are completely still in the race for a wild card (if not the division). I'd hardly say they are "headed for 3rd or 4th place."

Teams will always spend as long as they are winning. As long as KC is winning, I'd wager that they'll continue spending money. They have been savvy on their FA pickups in recent years as well, getting very good value on mid tier free agents like Guthrie, Kennedy, Morales, and Volquez.
Click to expand...

I said before the season that the AL Central would be close between the top four teams. I picked Detroit to win and they still might. KC may still make a run because they have a tremendously easy schedule after July, playing the Twins 13 times and the Rays and the Yankees. I think they go into August about 4 games under .500 then close strong to end up in the 84-90 win range. Right now they are tied with the WS for third in the AL Central. As far as continuing to spend money, I don't see it. I think they are about on their top end now in the $130M range. I just don't see their economics supporting much more than that.

I think they've made some decent moves signing FA but I think the Kennedy and especially the re-signing of Gordon are going to have serious negative long term effects.
 
bravos4evr said:
but no plan, no matter how brilliant guarantees a world series win in the double wild card era. all a team can do is make the playoffs, after that it's luck, hit sequencing and winning 3 series in a row.
Click to expand...

Luck plays a part but the Yankees didn't win 25 World Series by being lucky alone.

You have to be good to get through the 162. After that, you can get hot and play above your talent or get cold and play below. And the build to win the 162 can actually hurt an effort to win WS. For instances, the Braves "Four Aces" seemed like a good idea at the time and was for the 162, but when they got to the playoff run up to the WS, the "Four Ace" approach became less valuable and the whitewash over the other cracks in the teams that were there because of the payroll tied up by the four aces showed through.

I've long felt that the formula for the playoffs is a team with 2 Aces and another good SP, a decent pen and lock down closer, a team that gets on base, has good power and can play little ball if they have to.
 
Personally, I think anyone trying to claim we had too many elite pitchers is crazy. It was indeed a great strategy for the 162, and since we've established that the playoffs becomes a bit of a crapshoot, it's a great strategy to give you a good shot at the WS year after year.

We won one WS, should have had at least 2, and had a pretty good shot at 2-3 more. You don't have to change much for us to end up with 4 WS titles in that stretch.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Luck plays a part but the Yankees didn't win 25 World Series by being lucky alone.

You have to be good to get through the 162. After that, you can get hot and play above your talent or get cold and play below. And the build to win the 162 can actually hurt an effort to win WS. For instances, the Braves "Four Aces" seemed like a good idea at the time and was for the 162, but when they got to the playoff run up to the WS, the "Four Ace" approach became less valuable and the whitewash over the other cracks in the teams that were there because of the payroll tied up by the four aces showed through.

I've long felt that the formula for the playoffs is a team with 2 Aces and another good SP, a decent pen and lock down closer, a team that gets on base, has good power and can play little ball if they have to.
Click to expand...

Nate Silver did a study of the entire history of the WS, team construction...etc to try and find a "recipe for success" how to build a team to win it all. What did he find? absolutely nothing. all types of team constructions have won and lost. He found a slightly above the noise edge to power pitching and that was it. There simply is no way to build a team to guarantee wins or increase your chances. Basically you have to win in the regular season and win 3 series. (sometimes 4 these days)

as far as the Yankees. The reserve clause era and limited playoffs really skewed things in favor of teams with larger scouting departments back then as once they got good players, they kept them forever. and let us not forget that they spent like $2 billion over a decade and got one world series for their money over that span.

To win, you have to hit sequence well, hit homers and have the breaks go your way. Look at the Royals, near the bottom in homers during the regular season the last 2 years yet magically started hitting em like the 61 Yankees during the playoffs. Their playoff performance was completely different than how they won in the regular season.
 
bravos4evr said:
Nate Silver did a study of the entire history of the WS, team construction...etc to try and find a "recipe for success" how to build a team to win it all. What did he find? absolutely nothing. all types of team constructions have won and lost. He found a slightly above the noise edge to power pitching and that was it. There simply is no way to build a team to guarantee wins or increase your chances. Basically you have to win in the regular season and win 3 series. (sometimes 4 these days)

as far as the Yankees. The reserve clause era and limited playoffs really skewed things in favor of teams with larger scouting departments back then as once they got good players, they kept them forever. and let us not forget that they spent like $2 billion over a decade and got one world series for their money over that span.

To win, you have to hit sequence well, hit homers and have the breaks go your way. Look at the Royals, near the bottom in homers during the regular season the last 2 years yet magically started hitting em like the 61 Yankees during the playoffs. Their playoff performance was completely different than how they won in the regular season.
Click to expand...

It is simply not true that front loading your rotation gives you the same chances of winning a short series than 5 good pitchers does....because in a short series you don't benefit from having a deep rotation.

Sorry, but nobody's research is going to convince me that a 5 man rotation of 3 WAR pitchers is going to do better in a short series than a 5 man rotation of 3x 5 WAR pitchers and 2 replacement level pitchers. The team with 5x 3 WAR pitchers will be sending a 3 WAR pitcher to the mound in every game of the series, while the team with 3x 5 WAR pitchers is going to be sending a 5 WAR pitcher to the mound for every game in a short series.

Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything, but to say a team can do nothing to improve their odds of winning a title is what fans and members of the organization say when their team wins 1 WS in 14 tries.
 
Enscheff said:
It is simply not true that front loading your rotation gives you the same chances of winning a short series than 5 good pitchers does....because in a short series you don't benefit from having a deep rotation.

Sorry, but nobody's research is going to convince me that a 5 man rotation of 3 WAR pitchers is going to do better in a short series than a 5 man rotation of 3x 5 WAR pitchers and 2 replacement level pitchers. The team with 5x 3 WAR pitchers will be sending a 3 WAR pitcher to the mound in every game of the series, while the team with 3x 5 WAR pitchers is going to be sending a 5 WAR pitcher to the mound for every game in a short series.

Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything, but to say a team can do nothing to improve their odds of winning a title is what fans and members of the organization say when their team wins 1 WS in 14 tries.
Click to expand...

...but we were the ones with 3 elite SPs.

And why are you focusing on short series?
 
Enscheff said:
It is simply not true that front loading your rotation gives you the same chances of winning a short series than 5 good pitchers does....because in a short series you don't benefit from having a deep rotation.

Sorry, but nobody's research is going to convince me that a 5 man rotation of 3 WAR pitchers is going to do better in a short series than a 5 man rotation of 3x 5 WAR pitchers and 2 replacement level pitchers. The team with 5x 3 WAR pitchers will be sending a 3 WAR pitcher to the mound in every game of the series, while the team with 3x 5 WAR pitchers is going to be sending a 5 WAR pitcher to the mound for every game in a short series.
Click to expand...

Right, so you win the short series and then have to win 2 long series, possibly with your #1 and #2 having already pitched on short rest.

Also, the organization that won 1 WS in 14 tries did so with the best 1-3 in the game for most of those years. I'm not sure why you'd bring that up to support your argument.
 
Enscheff said:
It is simply not true that front loading your rotation gives you the same chances of winning a short series than 5 good pitchers does....because in a short series you don't benefit from having a deep rotation.

Sorry, but nobody's research is going to convince me that a 5 man rotation of 3 WAR pitchers is going to do better in a short series than a 5 man rotation of 3x 5 WAR pitchers and 2 replacement level pitchers. The team with 5x 3 WAR pitchers will be sending a 3 WAR pitcher to the mound in every game of the series, while the team with 3x 5 WAR pitchers is going to be sending a 5 WAR pitcher to the mound for every game in a short series.

Obviously it doesn't guarantee anything, but to say a team can do nothing to improve their odds of winning a title is what fans and members of the organization say when their team wins 1 WS in 14 tries.
Click to expand...

I am confused by your argument here. I am referring to total team construction. If you have 3 X 5 WAR pitchers and two bums and a bad offense, you might win 5 world series or none. If you have a team full of avg players and a couple of superstars you might win 5 world series or none. If you have ANY type of construction be it power and pitching, defense and pitching, monster offense.......etc you might win 5 world series or none. it all comes down to A- getting in the playoffs B- having the hit sequencing and power show up when it counts and C- having the breaks go your way

I don't understand why my above statement has much to do with your counter at all. I never referred to pitching in particular nor is there any evidence that to win the WS a team must have a specific arrangment of starting pitching. (heck the royals kinda showed us that )
 
rawwr said:
Right, so you win the short series and then have to win 2 long series, possibly with your #1 and #2 having already pitched on short rest.

Also, the organization that won 1 WS in 14 tries did so with the best 1-3 in the game for most of those years. I'm not sure why you'd bring that up to support your argument.
Click to expand...

Well the other part of the argument there is the power pitchers being stronger in the postseason, which I think played something of a role. Glavine and Maddux had decent postseason numbers in their careers, but neither were dominating like Smoltz was. Glavine and Maddux would go out give up 2 or 3 runs over 6 or 7 in the playoffs, and then they'd be facing Schilling, Randy, Brown, Livan (and his friendly strikezone of course), Cone.

We had a combination of our bullpens letting down in a number of losses, and our hitting was subpar in some years. But many times we just got plain outpitched in the postseason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top