Winter Meetings Thread

smootness said:
The heck are you talking about? What makes you think the Braves believe they have a great OF? They signed Markakis because they had to use the money, might as well get something. They traded for Kemp because all they gave up was Olivera and they believe his bat will come back around enough.

There is nothing about keeping either player that indicates they're in the Stone Age in player valuation. Coppy is as analytically-driven as any GM in baseball.
Click to expand...

Yes, that made no sense at all.

the Pads paid the Braves 25 million to take Kemp's contract and they gave up nothing.

Markakis has done nothing but quietly earn his contract, which for some reason really bothers some people.

Braves have done nothing at all that suggests they think they have a world class outfield they'd never break up. In fact, they've shopped Markakis. They've probably shopped Kemp.
 
The Neck and Kemp are positive in the sense that they are better than putting rotten corpses in the OF. Both are players you have to give rid of if you seriously want to contend.
 
I remember when 11m a year actually got you something nice in free agency and gas was .05 a gallon. Oh the times are a changin
 
thethe said:
Analytics are best for players you don't see everyday. If you are a scout aND you watch a team everyday then you don't need to lean on stats as much as you would for any other player.
Click to expand...

Except human bias is a real thing. Cards fans that watched Jim Edmonds everyday swore he was better than Andruw due to 'sliding catches' among other things.

I can see that for the most part Neck has no power and is a poor right fielder due to range and throwing arm. He makes up some of that with walking an ok amount and being a good contact/singles guy. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not great. It's not bad. Which is pretty much what a 1-2 WAR player is.
 
gilesfan said:
The Neck and Kemp are positive in the sense that they are better than putting rotten corpses in the OF. Both are players you have to give rid of if you seriously want to contend.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Kemp and Markakis are both complimentary type players. They're not stars anymore but they're not SVODs either. You can't have stars at every position so you need guys like them.

I think the problem is we have have both of them. One or the other would be fine. But ideally we'd get a star or close to it for one of those spots.

Personally, I like the power Kemp brings in left. That's a harder thing to find than anything Markakis does. If we upgraded in right, having Kemp in left would be fine.
 
Southcack77 said:
Yes, that made no sense at all.

the Pads paid the Braves 25 million to take Kemp's contract and they gave up nothing.

Markakis has done nothing but quietly earn his contract, which for some reason really bothers some people.

Braves have done at all that suggests they thing they have a world class outfield they'd never think about breaking up. In fact, they've shopped Markakis. They've probably shopped Kemp.
Click to expand...

Technically the Dodgers are paying that money.
 
striker42 said:
I disagree. Kemp and Markakis are both complimentary type players. They're not stars anymore but they're not SVODs either. You can't have stars at every position so you need guys like them.

I think the problem is we have have both of them. One or the other would be fine. But ideally we'd get a star or close to it for one of those spots.

Personally, I like the power Kemp brings in left. That's a harder thing to find than anything Markakis does. If we upgraded in right, having Kemp in left would be fine.
Click to expand...

This is prolly true. You may be able to win with 1 in lineup if rest is really good.
 
striker42 said:
I disagree. Kemp and Markakis are both complimentary type players. They're not stars anymore but they're not SVODs either. You can't have stars at every position so you need guys like them.

I think the problem is we have have both of them. One or the other would be fine. But ideally we'd get a star or close to it for one of those spots.

Personally, I like the power Kemp brings in left. That's a harder thing to find than anything Markakis does. If we upgraded in right, having Kemp in left would be fine.
Click to expand...

No the problem is that that are earning market or above market value prices. 1-2 WAR players are nice complimentary guys but you really don't want to be paying them as much as the Braves are.
 
thewupk said:
Except human bias is a real thing. Cards fans that watched Jim Edmonds everyday swore he was better than Andruw due to 'sliding catches' among other things.

I can see that for the most part Neck has no power and is a poor right fielder due to range and throwing arm. He makes up some of that with walking an ok amount and being a good contact/singles guy. There is nothing wrong with that. It's not great. It's not bad. Which is pretty much what a 1-2 WAR player is.
Click to expand...

To make a reasonable comparison to players you don't watch then of course you need analytics. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

The comment was Nick wasn't a good player I believe and I just don't believe that is the case. He has been a pretty solid Brave. He just isn't anything special. But, if we are lucky enough to have a low to mid 80 win team this year I'd bet that Nick is a big part of that. I wouldn't be upet if he is up in a big spot late in the game.

He isn't heywood in RF but overall he doesn't hurt you out there any more than a league average right fielder.
 
thethe said:
To make a reasonable comparison to players you don't watch then of course you need analytics. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

The comment was Nick wasn't a good player I believe and I just don't believe that is the case. He has been a pretty solid Brave. He just isn't anything special. But, if we are lucky enough to have a low to mid 80 win team this year I'd bet that Nick is a big part of that. I wouldn't be upet if he is up in a big spot late in the game.

He isn't heywood in RF but overall he doesn't hurt you out there any more than a league average right fielder.
Click to expand...

This is where I think WAR went from being a progressive stat to a regressive one for the ones who take it too seriously. Frot offices use their own proprietary blend of stats and combine that with advice from trusted scouts. They don't go to fangraphs and make all of their decisions based off of WAR. You wouldn't even need a GM if that was the case as it would not require any work or thought process.
 
thethe said:
To make a reasonable comparison to players you don't watch then of course you need analytics. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

The comment was Nick wasn't a good player I believe and I just don't believe that is the case. He has been a pretty solid Brave. He just isn't anything special. But, if we are lucky enough to have a low to mid 80 win team this year I'd bet that Nick is a big part of that. I wouldn't be upet if he is up in a big spot late in the game.

He isn't heywood in RF but overall he doesn't hurt you out there any more than a league average right fielder.
Click to expand...

You can get caught up in semantics if you want. I don't see any way in which Markakis can be considered a good player. To be good players are above average. That certainly doesn't describe what Markakis has done here in two years.

And yes he has certainly hurt the team in RF on various occasions.
 
gilesfan said:
The Neck and Kemp are positive in the sense that they are better than putting rotten corpses in the OF. Both are players you have to give rid of if you seriously want to contend.
Click to expand...

Eh, you probably shouldn't run both out there if you want to contend, but Kemp can add value if his bat is good enough.

But we have no idea if the Braves plan to run either or both out there once we're trying to contend. We're not really there yet.
 
striker42 said:
I disagree. Kemp and Markakis are both complimentary type players. They're not stars anymore but they're not SVODs either. You can't have stars at every position so you need guys like them.

I think the problem is we have have both of them. One or the other would be fine. But ideally we'd get a star or close to it for one of those spots.

Personally, I like the power Kemp brings in left. That's a harder thing to find than anything Markakis does. If we upgraded in right, having Kemp in left would be fine.
Click to expand...

Yes, this.
 
thewupk said:
You can get caught up in semantics if you want. I don't see any way in which Markakis can be considered a good player. To be good players are above average. That certainly doesn't describe what Markakis has done here in two years.

And yes he has certainly hurt the team in RF on various occasions.
Click to expand...

He's a 'fine' player, is that better? He doesn't really help you and he doesn't really hurt you. Sure, he will hurt on single plays here and there, but he will also help on single plays. Overall, he's a guy you can run out there and be ok.
 
smootness said:
He's a 'fine' player, is that better? He doesn't really help you and he doesn't really hurt you. Sure, he will hurt on single plays here and there, but he will also help on single plays. Overall, he's a guy you can run out there and be ok.
Click to expand...

Which is what a 1-2 WAR player is. And most peoples issues were never with his performance. It's why the Braves gave him 4 years and why they were after such a player at market value prices to begin with.
 
Again, I don't see how two guys who are productive at the plate like Markakis and Kemp are hurting the team. They were both driving forces (along with others) for why the offense turned around so much. Not everyone can be a star. The ones that aren't you have to ensure aren't black holes.

For many reasons Nick had no chance with some of the fan base from the day he was signed. He has been productive for two years and should only continue yet another season away from his surgery.
 
thewupk said:
Which is what a 1-2 WAR player is. And most peoples issues were never with his performance. It's why the Braves gave him 4 years and why they were after such a player at market value prices to begin with.
Click to expand...

I think it's working out well because now that the braves are close to competing his great abs will be even more valueable. Many will mock this but he is also going to show the next generation how it's done. Swanson doesn't seem like he needs much guidance on how to be a pro but it's even better that he has such a great example to look up to.

I also think that part of the reason Nick was signed was to mentor Freddie. There were subtle things out that hinted Freddie was immature and not ready to be a leader. I'd like to think nick helped with that.
 
thewupk said:
Which is what a 1-2 WAR player is. And most peoples issues were never with his performance. It's why the Braves gave him 4 years and why they were after such a player at market value prices to begin with.
Click to expand...

So what are the issues with him? We knew what we were getting, we paid what it costs for that, and we've gotten that. No, we weren't competing, but we almost certainly had a payroll floor from ownership, so it hasn't hurt us in any way, shape, or form. He has only 2 years left, isn't that expensive, and could pretty easily be moved if we want to move him.
 
smootness said:
So what are the issues with him? We knew what we were getting, we paid what it costs for that, and we've gotten that. No, we weren't competing, but we almost certainly had a payroll floor from ownership, so it hasn't hurt us in any way, shape, or form. He has only 2 years left, isn't that expensive, and could pretty easily be moved if we want to move him.
Click to expand...

I think he has more value to the team now that we are going to be around a low 80 win team.
 
He's what he is. He's fine, you can run him out there and he won't hurt you, but you should look to upgrade if you have an opportunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top