What would Ender bring in a trade

smootness said:
Also this. Heyward has proven that you can provide just as much value as a beast defensively in RF as you can in CF. I don't see it lowering Acuna's value at all to have him in a corner, and that's obviously even more true if Acuna isn't that great in CF.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking that Law must not have subscribed to the Black Jesus as a 6 WAR player because of defense theory. Normally I agree with his opinions, but he's full of **** on this one.

As always, if someone offers significantly more than a player is worth you trade that player. But the return would have to be a big overpay for me to trade Ender right now...particularly when our starting corner outfielders consist of a statue and a corpse.
 
Deester11 said:
This FO ain't that damn stupid to trade Albies or Inciarte........... Right? Dear jeebus someone tell me I'm right!
Click to expand...

They were lukewarm on Albies. But I think they are gonna jump onto the bandwagon. The nice thing is even if they trade him now, his value is going to be tremendous.
 
I don't think it's a horrible idea, but it's not one I'd do. I'm one who is on board trading anyone who's value is in their defense as it's become an overvalued stat in the WAR age we're in now, but I think Ender is getting bertter offensively and at 26 his Defense shouldn't start declining yet. I'd think 2 more year Pache should be ready and that would be the optimum time to trade Ender.

The other thing is I believe we'll start trying to extend players and I'm not sure it sends the right message to trade a guy like Ender so soon after signing a team friendly extension and send that message.

Trading Nick is the play here. We'll have to eat some salary, take some salary back on an overpaid player we could use like a reliever, include a fringe prospect, or a variation of the three but it can be done.
 
Chico said:
I don't think it's a horrible idea, but it's not one I'd do. I'm one who is on board trading anyone who's value is in their defense as it's become an overvalued stat in the WAR age we're in now, but I think Ender is getting bertter offensively and at 26 his Defense shouldn't start declining yet. I'd think 2 more year Pache should be ready and that would be the optimum time to trade Ender.

The other thing is I believe we'll start trying to extend players and I'm not sure it sends the right message to trade a guy like Ender so soon after signing a team friendly extension and send that message.

Trading Nick is the play here. We'll have to eat some salary, take some salary back on an overpaid player we could use like a reliever, include a fringe prospect, or a variation of the three but it can be done.
Click to expand...

I have always agreed with this. Until seeing a year of Kemp in the outfield.
 
Jaw said:
I have always agreed with this. Until seeing a year of Kemp in the outfield.
Click to expand...

Haha...I'm not going to disagree wiht you there. It is hard to watch. I meant more having an all around player and I think Ender will be that as opposed to a defense only guy.
 
The problem is finding a fit team with the desire and resources to make a trade that would make the Braves better.

I think the Braves would need and Eaton return to trade him now.

The Gnats traded their 1, 3 and 6 prospects for Eaton. At the time, Giolito was the #3 prospect in baseball and Lopez the #38 and Dunning was top 100 quality.

Not that many teams who have those type prospects and fewer with those type prospects who have a CF need. Even less who would be willing to move the prospects.

I could see a bigger trade possibility where it is an Inciarte/Folty or Teheran combined trade.

Let's say Colorado wanted Inciarte for CF (with plans to move Blackmon over). I would think the Braves might consider a Inciarte & Folty for Dahl, Rodgers, Welker, Vilade and Murphy. But does Colorado want to move Blackmon out of CF, even with him as a pending FA? Probably not.

Or, let's say the Yankees wanted Inciarte+, and were willing to do a trade that included Frazier, Florial and Andujar. But, the Yankees have a big commitment to Ellsbury. Maybe if the Braves were willing to take Ellsbury and most of his salary back then they could pull another player or two. But, the Braves don't seem to be in position to use payroll space anymore to make smart moves.

Or let's say the Astros wanted Inciarte+ and intended to move Springer to a corner and they were willing to do a Tucker, Whitley and Celestino.

But it's unlikely those teams would give up that much and they are some of the very few who could and might see advantage from doing so.
 
Roughly, I think he could get us a top 10 prospect plus another one in the top 50. If an offer came along that was significantly better than that, I would say done. For the right price, I'm sure the FO would trade any player.
 
I'm not sure that Acuna is a CF or that that would be a good reason to trade Inciarte, but the idea that Inciarte is untouchable is somewhat weird.

He's certainly moveable for the right return. This is probably peak Inciarte right now.

Honestly you guys really love former and existing Braves.
 
Southcack77 said:
I'm not sure that Acuna is a CF or that that would be a good reason to trade Inciarte, but the idea that Inciarte is untouchable is somewhat weird.

He's certainly moveable for the right return. This is probably peak Inciarte right now.

Honestly you guys really love former and existing Braves.
Click to expand...

This.

I love Ender, but if you don't think your window opens until 2019 then it makes sense to trade Inciarte now while his defense grades out well. We have already seen a decline in performance this year and centerfield defense isn't something that really returns.

And the reason this move is sellable to the fans is you would be promoting potentially the #1 prospect in baseball to replace him. That's not a difficult sale, which is different from trading Freddie since there isn't an internal replacement that makes all that much sense.
 
Southcack77 said:
I'm not sure that Acuna is a CF or that that would be a good reason to trade Inciarte, but the idea that Inciarte is untouchable is somewhat weird.

He's certainly moveable for the right return. This is probably peak Inciarte right now.

Honestly you guys really love former and existing Braves.
Click to expand...

These are 2 very different statements:

1. Trade Ender because his value is at it's absolute peak right now.
2. Trade Ender because Acuna's defensive value is wasted in RF.

KLaw is arguing for point 2, which is absurd. Acuna has shown no signs that his defense is good enough to be "wasted" in any OF position. He will either be an average/good RFer, or a poor CFer...each equally valuable.

Point 1 has merit, and depending on where the team is on the win curve, one could intelligently argue in its favor. Personally, I think it's clear that trading Ender pushes the rebuild back, so it shouldn't be done unless the Gohara/Soroka/Allard/Wright pitching wave flops like the previous waves have. We should know the answer to that in about 20-22 months (trade deadline of 2019).
 
The thing for me is Inciarte is a very good player and is valuable. But, his value right now is to keep a bad team from looking marginally worse. It's not like the Braves are one player from contending. Most would agree that they are probably at least a year away from fielding a reasonably good team and probably 2 years away from possibly fielding a playoff team.

So, Inciarte's value is being wasted with the Braves right now unless you put stock in the value of 2-3 wins more on a bad team being worth having him around. Keep in mind that no one is suggesting that he be just given away. But Inciarte's true value to the Braves will either occur at the time the rest of the team has caught up enough to be competitive or whatever his trade value is in bringing back talent that has value at the time the rest of the team is competitive. He's not a face of the franchise guy where you build marketing campaigns around him (even if they should they aren't, better Inciarte than an unproven Swanson). He's not a casual fan draw.

He's an excellent baseball player who's peak value will likely be wasted while the rest of the team is trying to become good enough to actually win anything. He may still have really good value in 2019 and 2020 but his birthday is October 29, 1990 so in 2019 and 2020 he will have already peaked and be starting into his baseball physical decline. And, that's all assuming he doesn't get derailed along the way due to injury or other reasons.

IMO, you have to build for where you will be, not where you are when you are rebuilding.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
The thing for me is Inciarte is a very good player and is valuable. But, his value right now is to keep a bad team from looking marginally worse. It's not like the Braves are one player from contending. Most would agree that they are probably at least a year away from fielding a reasonably good team and probably 2 years away from possibly fielding a playoff team.

So, Inciarte's value is being wasted with the Braves right now unless you put stock in the value of 2-3 wins more on a bad team being worth having him around. Keep in mind that no one is suggesting that he be just given away. But Inciarte's true value to the Braves will either occur at the time the rest of the team has caught up enough to be competitive or whatever his trade value is in bringing back talent that has value at the time the rest of the team is competitive. He's not a face of the franchise guy where you build marketing campaigns around him (even if they should they aren't, better Inciarte than an unproven Swanson). He's not a casual fan draw.

He's an excellent baseball player who's peak value will likely be wasted while the rest of the team is trying to become good enough to actually win anything. He may still have really good value in 2019 and 2020 but his birthday is October 29, 1990 so in 2019 and 2020 he will have already peaked and be starting into his baseball physical decline. And, that's all assuming he doesn't get derailed along the way due to injury or other reasons.

IMO, you have to build for where you will be, not where you are when you are rebuilding.
Click to expand...

There is no way a rebuild can transition from 68 wins to 90 wins without a couple seasons where a few player's peak seasons are "wasted".
 
Enscheff said:
There is no way a rebuild can transition from 68 wins to 90 wins without a couple seasons where a few player's peak seasons are "wasted".
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's very difficult to synchronize everything so there are no "wasted" seasons. You do want to minimize it. But it can't be an absolute goal that overrides everything else. If you make it an absolute goal you will be punting for 50 years.

The Royals "wasted" most of Alex Gordon's prime. In an ideal world they trade him for a younger player with a later prime. If the Royals had adopted a zero wastage policy they might still be waiting for that magic season where everyone is in their prime.
 
Enscheff said:
There is no way a rebuild can transition from 68 wins to 90 wins without a couple seasons where a few player's peak seasons are "wasted".
Click to expand...

Under most circumstance. But not universally. The 1991 Braves jumped from last to first (65 wins to 94 wins) and had no home grown talent already past their prime. Guys that were brought in to supplement the team such as Pendelton, Bream, Liebrandt and Bellieard were all past their prime but were FA or trade acquisitions. The core guys were all 26 or younger, most MUCH younger.

A similar thing happened with the Astros when they went from 70 wins in 2014 to 86 wins in 2015.

I'm sure there are others.

If you want a dynasty or at least sustained success and high level play for a number of years, it's best that when you begin to be competitive you aren't saddled with players who are already in their decline, unless those players are not key core players and/or are close to being out from under team control and financial obligation.
 
Horsehide Harry said:
Under most circumstance. But not universally. The 1991 Braves jumped from last to first (65 wins to 94 wins) and had no home grown talent already past their prime. Guys that were brought in to supplement the team such as Pendelton, Bream, Liebrandt and Bellieard were all past their prime but were FA or trade acquisitions. The core guys were all 26 or younger, most MUCH younger.

A similar thing happened with the Astros when they went from 70 wins in 2014 to 86 wins in 2015.

I'm sure there are others.

If you want a dynasty or at least sustained success and high level play for a number of years, it's best that when you begin to be competitive you aren't saddled with players who are already in their decline, unless those players are not key core players and/or are close to being out from under team control and financial obligation.
Click to expand...

It does happen. I would add the Cubs to the examples you cited. But I think it is so difficult to achieve that it can't be an absolute goal. I do think given where we are on the expected win curve, we should at a minimum have a price in mind that we would be willing to part with guys like Freeman and Inciarte. If some team is willing to meet that price, you do the deal. But I don't think we should be actively trying to move them. Our front office has made some of its worst mistakes when it has been too anxious to move a particular player or fill a particular need.
 
nsacpi said:
Yeah. It's very difficult to synchronize everything so there are no "wasted" seasons. You do want to minimize it. But it can't be an absolute goal that overrides everything else. If you make it an absolute goal you will be punting for 50 years.

The Royals "wasted" most of Alex Gordon's prime. In an ideal world they trade him for a younger player with a later prime. If the Royals had adopted a zero wastage policy they might still be waiting for that magic season where everyone is in their prime.
Click to expand...

True. But, the Royals now face another down to the paint rebuild job. They reached their high water mark and now will soon be faced with years of last place finishes for another shot. Maybe that's the only way that they can do it. If you look at the Royals now, their best players are all about to be FA and will command money that is out of their league. They made the mistake of re-signing a declining fan favorite in Alex Gordon who is untradeable. Their minor league system is pretty barren. They are an old team. They have many bad contracts and their best under control player is a 28 YO catcher.

KC benefited in the first place from their position in the worst division in baseball. They had 2-3 years in the sun and now are headed back for another 10 years of mediocrity. If they HAD NOT won the WS, their rebuild would have to be considered a significant failure. As it is, since they did win, I would call it a brief, unsustainable success.
 
nsacpi said:
It does happen. I would add the Cubs to the examples you cited. But I think it is so difficult to achieve that it can't be an absolute goal. I do think given where we are on the expected win curve, we should at a minimum have a price in mind that we would be willing to part with guys like Freeman and Inciarte. If some team is willing to meet that price, you do the deal. But I don't think we should be actively trying to move them. Our front office has made some of its worst mistakes when it has been too anxious to move a particular player or fill a particular need.
Click to expand...

That's all I am saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top