Mallex Smith

[striker42]

Don't look now but Smith is heating up in AAA. He got off to a dreadful start but has steadily improved. He's hit .313 over 48 ABs in his last 12 games. He's stolen 8 bases in that time and only been caught once. He's posted 4 BBs and 6 strikeouts in the same span. If I've actually counted correctly, that should give him a .365 OBP over those 12 games.

I think he needs more time but he should be given plenty of ABs in ST and we should see him at some point next season.

[thethe]

All he does is continue to get on base and then steal some more. I'll take that at the big league level.

[sturg33]

I'm not convinced... think he strikes out too much to be a productive ML leaguer. But I'd be fine with giving him some ABs in September to see how he handles

[striker42]

He's improved his K rate this year and got it down to about 16% this season from over 18% last season. His BB% this year is a little under 9%. If he had a K% of 16% in the majors with a 9% BB rate, he'd be a little above average in those figures. If he has an 18% K rate he'd be right at average. It's not like he's striking out a quarter of his times to the plate.

He actually reminds me a lot of Dee Gordon.

[nsacpi]

This is a good way to look at it, keeping in mind the likelihood of some deterioration in the walk and strikeou rates when a hitter reaches the majors. The last part of the hitting equation is power and he would be below average there.
He's improved his K rate this year and got it down to about 16% this season from over 18% last season. His BB% this year is a little under 9%. If he had a K% of 16% in the majors with a 9% BB rate, he'd be a little above average in those figures. If he has an 18% K rate he'd be right at average. It's not like he's striking out a quarter of his times to the plate.

He actually reminds me a lot of Dee Gordon.

[weso1]

I'm not convinced... think he strikes out too much to be a productive ML leaguer. But I'd be fine with giving him some ABs in September to see how he handles

He k's a bit less than Michael Bourn did in the minors.

[gilesfan]

He actually reminds me a lot of Dee Gordon.

Is this considered a good thing or a bad thing? Granted, it would be nice to have the 2015 version of Gordon in the lineup and 2014 would be acceptable, but overall, he's been underwhelming. It will be interesting to see how Mallex translates to the majors; he's got less power than Gordon. If he can improve on his defense and put up .280/.340/.350, he can play.

[dak]

Curious if anyone has seen him defensively this year or has seen a recent scouting report on his defense. Coming into this year, many of the scouting reports suggested that he may not be able to stick in CF. He's obviously got the speed to cover a lot of ground, but there were concerns about his reads and routes. Similar to the situation we currently have w/ Maybin, his value to the team declines considerably if he can't play a consistently average CF.

[weso1]

I think his absolute ceiling is somewhere in between Bourn and Lofton. I know that's quite a range there between good player and Hall of Fame player (That's right I got Lofton in the Hall).

[striker42]

Is this considered a good thing or a bad thing? Granted, it would be nice to have the 2015 version of Gordon in the lineup and 2014 would be acceptable, but overall, he's been underwhelming. It will be interesting to see how Mallex translates to the majors; he's got less power than Gordon. If he can improve on his defense and put up .280/.340/.350, he can play.

Probably a good thing. Mallex has walked more than Gordon did in the minors. Gordon never broke double digits in his BB% until his third year in AAA.

I do think Gordon is going to regress some. He's not going to maintain a .388 BAPIP. I think 2014 Gordon is more the real Gordon.

If Mallex can become 2014 Dee Gordon with more walks, I'll be very, very happy. I think a .280/.340/.350 line isn't out of the question. Mallex's hitting tool seems to be legit and he's always shown he's willing to take a walk (his recent time in AAA excepted and even that looks to be turning around).

Personally I don't care as much about his power. If he's getting on base at a .340-.350 clip and swiping 40+ bags a year at the top of the order, I'm fine.

[Garmel]

Since moving to Gwinnett Mallex has gotten his K rate down to 14.4%. At AA it was at 17.1% and 18.4 at A+. Baby steps in the right direction.

[Garmel]

Curious if anyone has seen him defensively this year or has seen a recent scouting report on his defense. Coming into this year, many of the scouting reports suggested that he may not be able to stick in CF. He's obviously got the speed to cover a lot of ground, but there were concerns about his reads and routes. Similar to the situation we currently have w/ Maybin, his value to the team declines considerably if he can't play a consistently average CF.

His defensive range factor at CF at Gwinnett is 3.00. Pretty good but it is a SSS.

[Enscheff]

I think he will end up being just like Jace...a decent option as long as he is cheap. There is significant value in a guy playing CF or 2B that can put up a 700 OPS if he is playing for peanuts. Once guys like Mallex and Jace start to cost $5M, they immediately become non-tender and/or trade candidates.

[nsacpi]

I think he will end up being just like Jace...a decent option as long as he is cheap. There is significant value in a guy playing CF or 2B that can put up a 700 OPS if he is playing for peanuts. Once guys like Mallex and Jace start to cost $5M, they immediately become non-tender and/or trade candidates.

Play them while cheap. If they develop, keep them through the arb years. I think that's a good recipe for guys like Jace and Mallex.

[smootness]

I think he will end up being just like Jace...a decent option as long as he is cheap. There is significant value in a guy playing CF or 2B that can put up a 700 OPS if he is playing for peanuts. Once guys like Mallex and Jace start to cost $5M, they immediately become non-tender and/or trade candidates.

I agree. I've always thought Bourn was the best comparison for Mallex, and Bourn became about as good as he could have been. If Mallex gives us 1-2 WAR for a few years, that will be just fine.

[striker42]

I think he will end up being just like Jace...a decent option as long as he is cheap. There is significant value in a guy playing CF or 2B that can put up a 700 OPS if he is playing for peanuts. Once guys like Mallex and Jace start to cost $5M, they immediately become non-tender and/or trade candidates.

Mallex's speed makes him a bit different. If he's stealing 40 bases with a .340 OBP then he's very valuable.

[weso1]

Mallex's speed makes him a bit different. If he's stealing 40 bases with a .340 OBP then he's very valuable.

Yeah you're talking about maybe an extra 1 - 1.5 oWar just because of his speed.

[smootness]

Now seems like a good time to check out reasonable expected WAR from the pieces we currently have for next year, just to look at what we might need to add to try to compete. I would say a reasonable range would look something like this:

Freeman: 3-6 WAR
Simmons: 2-5 WAR
Peterson: 1-2 WAR
Markakis: 1.5-2.5 WAR
Bethancourt: 1-2 WAR if he hits a little better than he did this year at the MLB level
Olivera: ? Let's just throw out a 2-4 WAR range
Maybin: about 1 WAR
Mallex: optimistically 1-2 WAR

So you're looking at a range of about 12.5-24.5 WAR for your position players, probably falling somewhere a little under the 20 WAR mark.

Miller: 2-4 WAR
Teheran: 2-4 WAR assuming a bounce-back to his form from the previous 2 years
Wisler: 1-2.5 WAR

That gives you a range of about 5-10.5 WAR from those 3 starters, probably falling somewhere around 7-8. So that leaves you with something like 75 wins as a reasonable projection for next year's team. You could have everything go right and sit more like 80 from this roster, or you could have things like Teheran giving you nothing or injuries that could drop you back to under 70.

But reasonably, you're probably looking for about 10 WAR to give yourself a reasonable chance to make a run at a WC spot; that's not easy to do, but it's doable. If you went and used your available money to get Heyward, used Mallex in CF, and traded Maybin, then signed somebody like Kazmir for the starting rotation, and you're probably adding 7-8 WAR to your team with those moves, which gets you pretty close.

If you trade Teheran and a prospect or two for a good young bat (still not getting a stud) and use the savings to sign another decent FA SP, that could possibly get you over the top to the kind of range you're looking for.

We're not going to reasonably become a WS contender for 2016, and the only realistic way we add enough again after 2016 to become one by 2017 is if we trade the farm or if a couple guys see significant improvement and give you more than you expect (Simmons getting significantly better with the bat, Mallex becoming a stud defensive CF, etc.). But I think it is doable to get you into WC contention for the next 2 years while you wait on some more of the talent to progress and graduate.

[nsacpi]

Now seems like a good time to check out reasonable expected WAR from the pieces we currently have for next year, just to look at what we might need to add to try to compete. I would say a reasonable range would look something like this:

Freeman: 3-6 WAR
Simmons: 2-5 WAR
Peterson: 1-2 WAR
Markakis: 1.5-2.5 WAR
Bethancourt: 1-2 WAR if he hits a little better than he did this year at the MLB level
Olivera: ? Let's just throw out a 2-4 WAR range
Maybin: about 1 WAR
Mallex: optimistically 1-2 WAR

So you're looking at a range of about 12.5-24.5 WAR for your position players, probably falling somewhere a little under the 20 WAR mark.

Miller: 2-4 WAR
Teheran: 2-4 WAR assuming a bounce-back to his form from the previous 2 years
Wisler: 1-2.5 WAR

That gives you a range of about 5-10.5 WAR from those 3 starters, probably falling somewhere around 7-8. So that leaves you with something like 75 wins as a reasonable projection for next year's team. You could have everything go right and sit more like 80 from this roster, or you could have things like Teheran giving you nothing or injuries that could drop you back to under 70.

But reasonably, you're probably looking for about 10 WAR to give yourself a reasonable chance to make a run at a WC spot; that's not easy to do, but it's doable. If you went and used your available money to get Heyward, used Mallex in CF, and traded Maybin, then signed somebody like Kazmir for the starting rotation, and you're probably adding 7-8 WAR to your team with those moves, which gets you pretty close.

If you trade Teheran and a prospect or two for a good young bat (still not getting a stud) and use the savings to sign another decent FA SP, that could possibly get you over the top to the kind of range you're looking for.

We're not going to reasonably become a WS contender for 2016, and the only realistic way we add enough again after 2016 to become one by 2017 is if we trade the farm or if a couple guys see significant improvement and give you more than you expect (Simmons getting significantly better with the bat, Mallex becoming a stud defensive CF, etc.). But I think it is doable to get you into WC contention for the next 2 years while you wait on some more of the talent to progress and graduate.

I think your math is about right. 75 wins based upon what we currently have. With upgrades in left and catcher, we can add maybe a total of 4 more wins. That gets you to 79. To be a wild card contender we need to project to about 85 wins. Given we have not accounted for anything from 2 members of the starting rotation and the bullpen I think we are about there, even if we sign a mid-rotation type rather than an ace.

[smootness]

I think your math is about right. 75 wins based upon what we currently have. With upgrades in left and catcher, we can add maybe a total of 4 more wins. That gets you to 79. To be a wild card contender we need to project to about 85 wins. Given we have not accounted for anything from 2 members of the starting rotation and the bullpen I think we are about there, even if we sign a mid-rotation type rather than an ace.

Yeah, the bullpen and bench will obviously come into play. I would imagine, without looking at numbers, that the bench will usually get you 0-1 WAR overall, so that won't matter much. But a pretty good bullpen can get you probably around 3 WAR, so you may be right. I just hope we can get to WC contention level and be happy with that without giving away much on the farm.

[nsacpi]

I just hope we can get to WC contention level and be happy with that without giving away much on the farm.

Yup. I hope we don't try to accelerate the rebuild by trading from the very promising group we have in low A and the rookie leagues.

[Enscheff]

If they add Cespedes or Gordon in LF, a pitcher at Kazmir's level or better, sign a catcher that isn't hot garbage, and make a couple additions to the BP, there's no reason this can't be an 85-90 win team next season.

I see no need to use any more of the talent in the farm to add to this team. The pieces are available on the FA market, and the Braves will have the money to buy them provided they don't do something stupid like bid against themselves for Ces/Gordon.

[smootness]

If they add Cespedes or Gordon in LF, a pitcher at Kazmir's level or better, sign a catcher that isn't hot garbage, and make a couple additions to the BP, there's no reason this can't be an 85-90 win team next season.

I see no need to use any more of the talent in the farm to add to this team. The pieces are available on the FA market, and the Braves will have the money to buy them provided they don't do something stupid like bid against themselves for Ces/Gordon.

90 wins would be if that group all had great years, which isn't likely. I think if Kazmir and Cespedes are added, you're looking at a realistic projection of something like 83-86 wins.

[yeezus]

90 wins would be if that group all had great years, which isn't likely. I think if Kazmir and Cespedes are added, you're looking at a realistic projection of something like 83-86 wins.

Eh, it really depends on who you get good years from. I'm not going to say Simmons is going to be a low-.600 OPS guy forever. He could have a better season at any time. I think guys could always improve (or, obviously, get worse). But, I think our pitching could easily improve a good amount next year, and that would go a long way as well.

I'm personally not in favor of Cespedes. He's inconsistent and too boom-or-bust with his approach.

[Horsehide Harry]

Not nearly enough power to contend for anything realistically.

Freeman: 30hr (generous)
Simmons: 10hr (generous)
Peterson: 5 hr
Markakis: 10 hr (generous)
Bethancourt: 10 hr (generous)
Olivera: ? 20hr (unknown)
Maybin: 15hr (generous)
Mallex: 5hr

That's 105 hr. With league average likely being in the 150 range, then the bench would have to account for 45hr AND/OR you would have to sign or trade for a replacement bat for above where the net adds significantly to the total.

Good teams - playoff teams, WS teams, etc. average at least league average in HR. The statistics over the last 25 years show this.

Signing guys and counting up their WAR is one way to look at it. But a team full of the WAR you think you need but no power is statistically VERY unlikely to win anything.

[smootness]

Not nearly enough power to contend for anything realistically.

Freeman: 30hr (generous)
Simmons: 10hr (generous)
Peterson: 5 hr
Markakis: 10 hr (generous)
Bethancourt: 10 hr (generous)
Olivera: ? 20hr (unknown)
Maybin: 15hr (generous)
Mallex: 5hr

That's 105 hr. With league average likely being in the 150 range, then the bench would have to account for 45hr AND/OR you would have to sign or trade for a replacement bat for above where the net adds significantly to the total.

Good teams - playoff teams, WS teams, etc. average at least league average in HR. The statistics over the last 25 years show this.

Signing guys and counting up their WAR is one way to look at it. But a team full of the WAR you think you need but no power is statistically VERY unlikely to win anything.

Pirates have 83 right now, Royals have 84, Cardinals have 86. All on pace for about 120-130. Pirates will have 2 with 20 HR, Cardinals may end up with 2, Royals will probably only have 1.

You just need a lineup full of quality hitters who can get on base. That usually comes with at least league average HR; it doesn't always. Wins are wins.

[Horsehide Harry]

Pirates have 83 right now, Royals have 84, Cardinals have 86. All on pace for about 120-130. Pirates will have 2 with 20 HR, Cardinals may end up with 2, Royals will probably only have 1.

You just need a lineup full of quality hitters who can get on base. That usually comes with at least league average HR; it doesn't always. Wins are wins.

There are always exceptions. But, if you go look over the last 25 years, the RULE is league average HR or better.

If you want to play for the exception then your betting on a long shot. It MIGHT pay off but history says it won't.

[smootness]

There are always exceptions. But, if you go look over the last 25 years, the RULE is league average HR or better.

If you want to play for the exception then your betting on a long shot. It MIGHT pay off but history says it won't.

Well, those are 3 examples, but they just so happen to have the 3 best records in all of baseball in the current climate. This year shows that may not be a rule right now.

Yes, you also have the Yankees, Astros, and Dodgers hitting a bunch, but in baseball right now, you can win in several different ways.

Again, usually when you put together a quality lineup, HR will come with it. But there are plenty of examples right now of that not necessarily being the case. Those teams are all average or better in OBP.

I'm just saying, using the argument of 'Adding up our HR only comes to around 115, and you have to have at least 150 to compete for the playoffs,' is kind of crazy.

You know what the Cardinals do lead in? WAR.

[Horsehide Harry]

Well, those are 3 examples, but they just so happen to have the 3 best records in all of baseball in the current climate. This year shows that may not be a rule right now.

Yes, you also have the Yankees, Astros, and Dodgers hitting a bunch, but in baseball right now, you can win in several different ways.

Again, usually when you put together a quality lineup, HR will come with it. But there are plenty of examples right now of that not necessarily being the case. Those teams are all average or better in OBP.

I'm just saying, using the argument of 'Adding up our HR only comes to around 115, and you have to have at least 150 to compete for the playoffs,' is kind of crazy.

You know what the Cardinals do lead in? WAR.

WAR is a metric based on statistical input. And that's OK it's useful.

But, I'm also giving you a metric based on 25 years of statistical input.

Building your team without serious regard to power is crazy as is shown by history.

I don't think it wise to disregard history simply because it doesn't fit current needs. IF, I say IF, teams winning WS and pennants with power deprived offenses become a trend, then you have to accept that whether you like it or not and I will. But, so far, teams winning with a lack of power is the exception, not the rule.

[nsacpi]

There are multiple ways to win. But yeah, this team could use more power. I think realistically we can add 20-25 HR's by upgrading left and catcher relative to what we currently have under contractual control for next year. But we're unlikely to be an above-average power hitting team anytime soon. That won't happen until the current group in the rookie leagues mature. As Mr. Hart has noted bats are hard to find these days.

[smootness]

WAR is a metric based on statistical input. And that's OK it's useful.

But, I'm also giving you a metric based on 25 years of statistical input.

Building your team without serious regard to power is crazy as is shown by history.

I don't think it wise to disregard history simply because it doesn't fit current needs. IF, I say IF, teams winning WS and pennants with power deprived offenses become a trend, then you have to accept that whether you like it or not and I will. But, so far, teams winning with a lack of power is the exception, not the rule.

That's fine, I understand that.

But we also have to be realistic about what we have. Our current roster severely lacks power. There's a chance Markakis adds a little more next year, and Olivera should add some, so that helps, but we're still looking at being a below-average team with regard to power.

So our options are either to make an attempt to add a bunch of power over the next couple years or to go with what we do have and try to mold it into the best team we can. It will be unbelievably expensive to add the kind of power you want to add, so our best bet is to plug some holes with quality players to give ourselves a chance to compete while allowing our young talent to progress.

And yes, you can compete without being league-average in HR. I'm not saying we're going to become a team people will predict to win the WS. But we can become a team that pitches very well, defends well, and gets on base at an above-average rate. That team can absolutely compete for a playoff spot.

It's certainly a better argument, IMO, than, 'No, we don't have the proper number of HR, therefore we won't compete.'

[auyushu]

I don't think it wise to disregard history simply because it doesn't fit current needs. IF, I say IF, teams winning WS and pennants with power deprived offenses become a trend, then you have to accept that whether you like it or not and I will. But, so far, teams winning with a lack of power is the exception, not the rule.

There is a pretty big difference in trying to compete and make the playoffs versus winning a WS though. History backs up what you are saying as far as WS winners goes, league average at least in homers and having a couple 20 HR guys is pretty much the norm throughout most of baseball history. But you can make the playoffs pretty easily with strong pitching, good defense, and an average offense.

Building up that type of team and grooming a 2-3 high level bats in the minors is what we should be shooting for really. We aren't going to develop a WS team in 2-3 years of trying, nor should we be making that the aim.

[smootness]

There is a pretty big difference in trying to compete and make the playoffs versus winning a WS though. History backs up what you are saying as far as WS winners goes, league average at least in homers and having a couple 20 HR guys is pretty much the norm throughout most of baseball history. But you can make the playoffs pretty easily with strong pitching, good defense, and an average offense.

Building up that type of team and grooming a 2-3 high level bats in the minors is what we should be shooting for really. We aren't going to develop a WS team in 2-3 years of trying, nor should we be making that the aim.

These are my thoughts pretty much exactly.

[GovClintonTyree]

Curious if anyone has seen him defensively this year or has seen a recent scouting report on his defense. Coming into this year, many of the scouting reports suggested that he may not be able to stick in CF. He's obviously got the speed to cover a lot of ground, but there were concerns about his reads and routes. Similar to the situation we currently have w/ Maybin, his value to the team declines considerably if he can't play a consistently average CF.

dak, you moron, you know better than to ask questions like this. Here on Chop Country, we assess players on the basis of metrics. There's no value in watching games. Who are you gonna believe? Zito or your lying eyes?

[Horsehide Harry]

These are my thoughts pretty much exactly.

The ultimate goal is to win a WS (or should be) and then repeat as often as possible. The intermediate goal is to win a pennant. The short term is to be competitive.

However, I don't think it wise to make moves that improve the short term at the expense of the long term. I think you build with the long term goal in mind, get better along the way and the opportunity for short and intermediate goals will happen if you are pursuing the long term goal correctly.

The last time the Braves did a serious rebuild was late 80's early 90's. Yes, the whole pitching and defense mantra gets a lot of play as what made the Braves a dynasty. But, that's overlooking guys like Gant, Justice, Klesko, Lopez, CJ, Blauser, McGriff, Pendelton etc. where most came out of the Braves minors but some came as FA signings and even trade.

[Horsehide Harry]

To get back to the topic, I think Smith will/could be fine IF he can play CF and IF he can slot as a lead off guy. If he can't do that, then he has very little value as a starter for the Braves.

[smootness]

The ultimate goal is to win a WS (or should be) and then repeat as often as possible. The intermediate goal is to win a pennant. The short term is to be competitive.

However, I don't think it wise to make moves that improve the short term at the expense of the long term. I think you build with the long term goal in mind, get better along the way and the opportunity for short and intermediate goals will happen if you are pursuing the long term goal correctly.

The last time the Braves did a serious rebuild was late 80's early 90's. Yes, the whole pitching and defense mantra gets a lot of play as what made the Braves a dynasty. But, that's overlooking guys like Gant, Justice, Klesko, Lopez, CJ, Blauser, McGriff, Pendelton etc. where most came out of the Braves minors but some came as FA signings and even trade.

But I'm not arguing with any of this. In fact, you also said pretty much exactly what I agree with.

But what I'm saying is that 2016 and 2017 are not the end goal, at least they shouldn't be. We should be looking to make some moves to compete in those years, but the cost to truly build a WS contender in 2 years would be far too prohibitive.

I'm not saying we should be looking primarily at pitching and defense in our long-term strategy. Those should be two primary building blocks, but offense and power have to be two others. I'm one of those saying we should draft a hitter, as long as it makes sense in terms of value, over a pitcher at the top of next year's draft. I also love that we're going after Maitan next year as well.

I want offense. I want tons of offense and tons of power. But we have very little power right now, so trying to get enough to be league-average there by 2017 will be extremely difficult and extremely expensive. Therefore, I'd rather just build the best team we can without giving away the farm...so unfortunately, that would mean a team that is below-average in power.

[smootness]

To get back to the topic, I think Smith will/could be fine IF he can play CF and IF he can slot as a lead off guy. If he can't do that, then he has very little value as a starter for the Braves.

I agree with this. If his defense is above-average and he can get on base at a clip of .320 or better, he should have value for us. That would probably put him at about 2 WAR or more given his speed. If his defense is only average and his OBP falls more around .300, then he doesn't give us much value at all.

[KB21]

I want power, but I don't want a team that strikes out every 3 times they bat. Last year, we had a team that had the 3rd most strike outs in the NL but around the 5th or 6th fewest home runs. As a result, that offense wasn't much better than this year's despite the difference in power. Nothing good comes out of a strike out for a hitter, particularly if you strike out looking, IMO.

[smootness]

I want power, but I don't want a team that strikes out every 3 times they bat. Last year, we had a team that had the 3rd most strike outs in the NL but around the 5th or 6th fewest home runs. As a result, that offense wasn't much better than this year's despite the difference in power. Nothing good comes out of a strike out for a hitter, particularly if you strike out looking, IMO.

I agree that I'd rather have fewer Ks, but I'd take a ton more HR if they also came with a ton more Ks. Our problem last year was a lot of Ks without much power, as you said. If you have a lot of Ks but a lot of power, it's better than few Ks but few power, as the Astros are proving this year. And the Cubs will soon enough as well.

[Horsehide Harry]

But I'm not arguing with any of this. In fact, you also said pretty much exactly what I agree with.

But what I'm saying is that 2016 and 2017 are not the end goal, at least they shouldn't be. We should be looking to make some moves to compete in those years, but the cost to truly build a WS contender in 2 years would be far too prohibitive.

I'm not saying we should be looking primarily at pitching and defense in our long-term strategy. Those should be two primary building blocks, but offense and power have to be two others. I'm one of those saying we should draft a hitter, as long as it makes sense in terms of value, over a pitcher at the top of next year's draft. I also love that we're going after Maitan next year as well.

I want offense. I want tons of offense and tons of power. But we have very little power right now, so trying to get enough to be league-average there by 2017 will be extremely difficult and extremely expensive. Therefore, I'd rather just build the best team we can without giving away the farm...so unfortunately, that would mean a team that is below-average in power.

I think we agree

[KB21]

I agree that I'd rather have fewer Ks, but I'd take a ton more HR if they also came with a ton more Ks. Our problem last year was a lot of Ks without much power, as you said. If you have a lot of Ks but a lot of power, it's better than few Ks but few power, as the Astros are proving this year. And the Cubs will soon enough as well.

The Cubs won't do anything till they get some pitching.

[Horsehide Harry]

I want power, but I don't want a team that strikes out every 3 times they bat. Last year, we had a team that had the 3rd most strike outs in the NL but around the 5th or 6th fewest home runs. As a result, that offense wasn't much better than this year's despite the difference in power. Nothing good comes out of a strike out for a hitter, particularly if you strike out looking, IMO.

I agree completely.

I don't think you can have 8 Rob Deer's, Dave Kingman's or Adam Dunn's.

But you DO have to have power to be a consistent long term winner and some K's are going to come with that. Uggla hitting 30HR but also hitting .180 and K'ing 180 times doesn't work, especially since he's a 2B with bad defense.

But, you have to have some fear in the middle of your line-up and you need some quick strike capability.

[Horsehide Harry]

The Cubs won't do anything till they get some pitching.

The Cubs are going to buy their pitching in a market relatively full of options.

The Braves have taken the opposite approach (so far) and are now realizing that the cycle has changed and bats (specifically power bats) are scarce right now.

[smootness]

The Cubs won't do anything till they get some pitching.

Their pitching will be fine. They're 5th in the NL in runs allowed and have allowed 73 fewer than we have. Arrieta and Lester should anchor their rotation for the next several years, and all they really need is 1-2 pretty good options after that, which shouldn't be difficult to find given their money and assets.

They're just waiting now for their bats to all graduate and get some experience. In 2-3 years, their worst bats will be Castro, Russell, and Billy McKinney. That is crazy; I would give them a ton if they would give us just one of Russell and McKinney, and that's about the worst their lineup will get. And they'll have Rizzo-Bryant-Schwarber in the middle. It's going to be crazy.

[smootness]

I don't think you can have 8 Rob Deer's, Dave Kingman's or Adam Dunn's.

The Astros are not too far away from that right now.

[yeezus]

The Braves have taken the opposite approach (so far) and are now realizing that the cycle has changed and bats (specifically power bats) are scarce right now.

I think this is really silly to say, and not exactly true. I'm sure they have understood the whole time what their plan is and aren't suddenly realizing anything.

[thethe]

I think this is really silly to say, and not exactly true. I'm sure they have understood the whole time what their plan is and aren't suddenly realizing anything.

I love this idea that the Braves front office is a bunch of dinosaurs that are behind the times.

[nsacpi]

I think this is really silly to say, and not exactly true. I'm sure they have understood the whole time what their plan is and aren't suddenly realizing anything.

“You look out onto the market and it’s just tough to find those bats."---John Hart after the Olivera trade

[yeezus]

“You look out onto the market and it’s just tough to find those bats."---John Hart after the Olivera trade

So that means the FO suddenly realized something that you understood all along? That quote is not even close to proving what HH said as true.
I'm quite sure they have a decent finger on the pulse of the league, and do their homework. They aren't suddenly realizing anything.
Go ahead and throw everything into a vacuum, but it's not how it works. In a vacuum, you can say "Oh well we traded two good bats for mostly pitching, so clearly they don't understand the game!" But that ignores heaps of context around why we traded those bats.

[thethe]

I will just continue to chuckle at the thought the Braves front office doesn't know what they are doing.

[yeezus]

I will just continue to chuckle at the thought the Braves front office doesn't know what they are doing.

When I think, in hindsight, it's clear they made the right call by not going for broke for this year. The likelihood we would've truly competed is very small, and we'd have been left with next to nothing. So yeah, I trust them a tad.

[nsacpi]

So that means the FO suddenly realized something that you understood all along? That quote is not even close to proving what HH said as true.
I'm quite sure they have a decent finger on the pulse of the league, and do their homework. They aren't suddenly realizing anything.
Go ahead and throw everything into a vacuum, but it's not how it works. In a vacuum, you can say "Oh well we traded two good bats for mostly pitching, so clearly they don't understand the game!" But that ignores heaps of context around why we traded those bats.

This is from the NY times in an article dated July 27.

"We’re trying to build as much upside, impact pitching, as we can." ---John Copollela

In a broad sense finding bats and emphasizing pitching are not necessarily incompatible. Every team seeks out both. But up until the Olivera trade, the predominant pattern has been for the Braves to move hitting for pitching.

[thethe]

This is from the NY times in an article dated July 27.

"We’re trying to build as much upside, impact pitching, as we can." ---John Copollela

In a broad sense finding bats and emphasizing pitching are not necessarily incompatible. Every team seeks out both. But up until the Olivera trade, the predominant pattern has been for the Braves to move hitting for pitching.

Or the more likely scenario is that only pitching was available for the players given up.

But the Braves did acquire a few positional prospects in their offseason trades. If Ruiz hadn't **** the bed we would be in a different situation right now. Maybe one where the trade for Olivera wasn't necessary.

[nsacpi]

Or the more likely scenario is that only pitching was available for the players given up.



I think there were two factors at work:

1) The Braves wanted to get back to the Braves way. Which means pitching, pitching and more pitching. Which might not be the right approach in the current era.

2) Other teams were more willing to part with pitching than hitting. Which is part and parcel of this new era where hitting is relatively scarce and pitching relatively abundant.

[Tapate50]

This is from the NY times in an article dated July 27.

"We’re trying to build as much upside, impact pitching, as we can." ---John Copollela

In a broad sense finding bats and emphasizing pitching are not necessarily incompatible. Every team seeks out both. But up until the Olivera trade, the predominant pattern has been for the Braves to move hitting for pitching.

Well his diagnosis of the milb roster was correct. There was no impact pitching in our system. Lot of filler arms, and mostly bp guys...

It might have been abundant but that doesn't mean that we had any.

[keithlaw]

Or the more likely scenario is that only pitching was available for the players given up.

But the Braves did acquire a few positional prospects in their offseason trades. If Ruiz hadn't **** the bed we would be in a different situation right now. Maybe one where the trade for Olivera wasn't necessary.

Also when the rebuild started we had one major league pitcher who had finished the season healthy and only 2 legit SP prospects.

[thethe]

Also when the rebuild started we had one major league pitcher who had finished the season healthy and only 2 legit SP prospects.

It was pretty clear where the organization was deficient.

[yeezus]

I think there were two factors at work:

1) The Braves wanted to get back to the Braves way. Which means pitching, pitching and more pitching. Which might not be the right approach in the current era.

2) Other teams were more willing to part with pitching than hitting. Which is part and parcel of this new era where hitting is relatively scarce and pitching relatively abundant.

1) and not necessarily wrong, either, especially if the pitching you're being offered provides a higher upside than the hitting being offered.

2) this pretty closely coincides with point #1.

Teams win championships on the heels of pitching all the time.
And still none of this supports the idea that Hart and the FO suddenly just realized offense was part of baseball, too; it's just a different approach, and stocking up on pitching is hardly a new, or previously unsuccessful, strategy.

[yeezus]

Well his diagnosis of the milb roster was correct. There was no impact pitching in our system. Lot of filler arms, and mostly bp guys...

It might have been abundant but that doesn't mean that we had any.

this is also a key point: we didn't have much of that "abundant" pitching (and I think the abundance is overstated by some). our organization needed a lot of things, pitching definitely being one of them. building on pitching is not a crazy idea.

[nsacpi]

1) and not necessarily wrong, either, especially if the pitching you're being offered provides a higher upside than the hitting being offered.

2) this pretty closely coincides with point #1.

Teams win championships on the heels of pitching all the time.
And still none of this supports the idea that Hart and the FO suddenly just realized offense was part of baseball, too; it's just a different approach, and stocking up on pitching is hardly a new, or previously unsuccessful, strategy.

Well, we will have an opportunity this off-season to double down on the pitching strategy because there should be a glut of FA starting pitching.

[yeezus]

Well, we will have an opportunity this off-season to double down on the pitching strategy because there should be a glut of FA starting pitching.

Not necessarily a ton of great SP, though.
TOR starters are not plentiful.
Guys with a .750 OPS like JUp are more prevalent.

[nsacpi]

this is also a key point: we didn't have much of that "abundant" pitching (and I think the abundance is overstated by some). our organization needed a lot of things, pitching definitely being one of them. building on pitching is not a crazy idea.

Abundant is I suppose a subjective word.

I will toss out a few names that I think will show that we maybe overcompensated for any perceived shortage of pitching in our system: Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Foltynevich, Wisler, Banuelos, Sanchez, Thurman, Toussaint, Gant, Whalen, Winkler, Vizcaino.

I will offer an analogy: foreign exchange rates. You can think of pitchers as the euro and hitters as the dollar. It doesn't really matter whether you stock up on hitters and pitchers in a world where the exchange rate is fairly stable. But when it is shifting in one direction or another you can get whipsawed. All of the euros you might have accumulated over a period might bring back significantly fewer dollars when you try to exchange them. You can keep doubling down and keep buying euros in the firm belief that it will recover. We will have an opportunity to do that this off-season. Or you can change your mind and decide that those bats (dollars) are hard to get and you better cash in those euros even if the exchange rate has moved against you. I think we started to see this realization with the Olivera trade.

[Tapate50]

Abundant is I suppose a subjective word.

I will toss out a few names that I think will show that we maybe overcompensated for any perceived shortage of pitching in our system: Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Foltynevich, Wisler, Banuelos, Sanchez, Thurman, Toussaint, Gant, Whalen, Winkler.

I will offer an analogy: foreign exchange rates. You can think of pitchers as the euro and hitters as the dollar. It doesn't really matter whether you stock up on hitters and pitchers in a world where the exchange rate is fairly stable. But when it is shifting in one direction or another you can get whipsawed. All of the euros you might have accumulated over a period might bring back significantly fewer dollars when you try to exchange them.

Arent you the one that says we lose one quality pitching prospect as they move up a level, and use 8-9 throughout the year?

[sturg33]

I swear, any questioning of the FO strategy is met with vicious defense

[gilesfan]

To get back to the topic, I think Smith will/could be fine IF he can play CF and IF he can slot as a lead off guy. If he can't do that, then he has very little value as a starter for the Braves.

That's a good point. There is a fine line between a Eury Perez and a Mallex Smith; you hope you can get a starting CF out of the deal. If not, he's pretty worthless.

[yeezus]

I swear, any questioning of the FO strategy is met with vicious defense

is a message board not for discussing this type of thing, though? why do you complain about it? when something is said and someone disagrees, it's talked about. "vicious" is extreme. but, welcome to the internet.

[nsacpi]

Arent you the one that says we lose one quality pitching prospect as they move up a level, and use 8-9 throughout the year?

Yup.

[gilesfan]

The Cubs won't do anything till they get some pitching.

They have the 5th best pitching staff in the league behind Cards, Dodger, Mets, Nats. I really don't understand why people think the Cubs have bad pitching. (not to single you out)

[gilesfan]

Their pitching will be fine. They're 5th in the NL in runs allowed and have allowed 73 fewer than we have. Arrieta and Lester should anchor their rotation for the next several years, and all they really need is 1-2 pretty good options after that, which shouldn't be difficult to find given their money and assets.

They're just waiting now for their bats to all graduate and get some experience. In 2-3 years, their worst bats will be Castro, Russell, and Billy McKinney. That is crazy; I would give them a ton if they would give us just one of Russell and McKinney, and that's about the worst their lineup will get. And they'll have Rizzo-Bryant-Schwarber in the middle. It's going to be crazy.


The Cubs are buying a starter away from being the best team in baseball and they will have a ton of options to choose from.

[Tapate50]

I swear, any questioning of the FO strategy is met with vicious defense

Wanna talk about whats getting old....

[yeezus]

Abundant is I suppose a subjective word.

I will toss out a few names that I think will show that we maybe overcompensated for any perceived shortage of pitching in our system: Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Foltynevich, Wisler, Banuelos, Sanchez, Thurman, Toussaint, Gant, Whalen, Winkler, Vizcaino.

I will offer an analogy: foreign exchange rates. You can think of pitchers as the euro and hitters as the dollar. It doesn't really matter whether you stock up on hitters and pitchers in a world where the exchange rate is fairly stable. But when it is shifting in one direction or another you can get whipsawed. All of the euros you might have accumulated over a period might bring back significantly fewer dollars when you try to exchange them. You can keep doubling down and keep buying euros in the firm belief that it will recover. We will have an opportunity to do that this off-season. Or you can change your mind and decide that those bats (dollars) are hard to get and you better cash in those euros even if the exchange rate has moved against you. I think we started to see this realization with the Olivera trade.

I don't think many people feel we have a shortage of pitching anymore. We most definitely did before the trades, though. We had very little, and even less with TOR upside.

Your analogy may work in a vacuum. When you have next to no high-upside young pitching, and you're being offered that high-upside pitching in exchange for your bats that will likely be leaving in a year, it makes sense to take it over the lower-upside bats possibly being offered (especially if you like the idea of building on pitching, which many teams do, and many teams win with).

[nsacpi]

That's a good point. There is a fine line between a Eury Perez and a Mallex Smith

At age 22 Eury slashed .333/.373/.390 in AAA, with some impressive stolen base stats.

[Tapate50]

No one is being vicious, and no one is defending. There are many different perfectly acceptable ways to view rebuilding this team. Throwing everyone who disagrees with you into the "sheep" category is getting old. Plenty of people don't think so.

We had no pitching in the minors and could have spent on FA's, but the budget as it was didn't allow that. We needed all aspects of the game to supplement the lack of depth in the system. Pitching is whats been sold, because position players probably weren't being offered much. To assume we weren't interested in position players is just a bit short sighted and naïve.

[yeezus]

Luckily the Cubbies have $$$ to spend, unlike us. "Luckily" they got the #2 and #4 picks in great drafts (and Schwarber fell to 4). They still have very little young pitching, and I think it will hurt them. But we'll see.

[gilesfan]

At age 22 Eury slashed .333/.373/.390 in AAA, with some impressive stolen base stats.

Yeah, I know. That's further proof.

[sturg33]

I think Hart traded a lot of bats for a lot of pitchers. Now we're struggling to find bats.

Is that fair?

[nsacpi]

I don't think many people feel we have a shortage of pitching anymore. We most definitely did before the trades, though. We had very little, and even less with TOR upside.

Your analogy may work in a vacuum. When you have next to no high-upside young pitching, and you're being offered that high-upside pitching in exchange for your bats that will likely be leaving in a year, it makes sense to take it over the lower-upside bats possibly being offered (especially if you like the idea of building on pitching, which many teams do, and many teams win with).

And we shouldn't be surprised that taking this approach eventually culminates in trading Alex Wood for Olivera.

[nsacpi]

I think Hart traded a lot of bats for a lot of pitchers. Now we're struggling to find bats.

Is that fair?

It seems rather obvious that this is what has happened.

[yeezus]

At age 22 Eury slashed .333/.373/.390 in AAA, with some impressive stolen base stats.

IMO Mallex's AA stats this year are far more impressive than Eury's that year.

[nsacpi]

The Cubs are buying a starter away from being the best team in baseball and they will have a ton of options to choose from.

The Cubs are going to have so many wonderful choices this off-season. And if they are smart and patient, they are going to get some starting pitching at terrific prices.

[yeezus]

And we shouldn't be surprised that taking this approach eventually culminates in trading Alex Wood for Olivera.

(which plenty of people, including non-Braves homer experts, think is a totally fine deal).

[nsacpi]

IMO Mallex's AA stats this year are far more impressive than Eury's that year.

And overall, if you combine AA and AAA?

[Tapate50]

It seems rather obvious that this is what has happened.

Not really, bats that were here for one year for pitchers that would be here for 6 is more accurate. Short term expensive assets, for long term cost controlled ones.

[yeezus]

I think Hart traded a lot of bats for a lot of pitchers. Now we're struggling to find bats.

Is that fair?

What hitters do you think we were being offered for JUp and Heyward?
Where were we going to do about pitching if we didn't get some of the guys we did?

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the opinions of professionals like Hart and the FO over your and nsacpi's is hardly crazy, but you'd think it is.

[gilesfan]

The Cubs are going to have so many wonderful choices this off-season. And if they are smart and patient, they are going to get some starting pitching at terrific prices.

Yeah, they can let the top guys go and sign a Zimmermann for example. They really don't even have a great need for a TOR guy. Plus, if they have to go the trade route, they are still absolutely stacked with a top 10 farm system despite all the graduations. They absolutely destroyed the 14 draft with those pitchers.

[yeezus]

Then can we combine Eury's AA season in 2012, too? His AA stats are 82 games vs. 40 in AAA (the stats you cherry picked). Mallex's are 57 in AA and 35 in AAA. I bet his numbers improve a lot if you give him 47 more AAA games. They're already improving a lot since his poor start.

[nsacpi]

What hitters do you think we were being offered for JUp and Heyward?
Where were we going to do about pitching if we didn't get some of the guys we did?

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the opinions of professionals like Hart and the FO over your and nsacpi's is hardly crazy, but you'd think it is.

I'm not an insider and don't know what the alternatives were. But I can't help but note that some teams did find a way to acquire premium young hitting talent. The Cubs' trade for Addison Russell being a prime example. Another example would be the Blue Jays picking up Josh Donaldson.

[sturg33]

What hitters do you think we were being offered for JUp and Heyward?
Where were we going to do about pitching if we didn't get some of the guys we did?

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the opinions of professionals like Hart and the FO over your and nsacpi's is hardly crazy, but you'd think it is.

Then no trade should ever be questioned ever.

[striker42]

Or the more likely scenario is that only pitching was available for the players given up.

But the Braves did acquire a few positional prospects in their offseason trades. If Ruiz hadn't **** the bed we would be in a different situation right now. Maybe one where the trade for Olivera wasn't necessary.

Ruiz's collapse is strange. Scouts loved the guy's ability. They all thought he was going to be a terrific hitter. The stats seemed to back it up. His BB rate was excellent and his K rate, while a little high originally, improved greatly last year.

Even this year a lot of Ruiz's peripheral stats aren't terrible. His BB rate has improved and is very, very good. He's striking out too much at 20% of his PAs but that's not terrible. It's generally in the average range.

His BAPIP is a lot lower than his career norm. His BAPIP is only .274. It's usually over .300. That seems to indicate some of his struggles have been due to bad luck but not all. If his BABIP were to jump into the .310 range he would still be having an off year.

The power outage is the most puzzling thing. Ruiz had 50 XBH in 602 PA in A+ ball last season. He had 46 in 2013 in only 472 PA. This year he has 13 in 370. Last year he averaged an XBH every 12 PA or so. This year he's averaging an XBH every 31 PA. That is concerning.

I'm hoping Ruiz has some kind of nagging injury that's depressing his numbers this year. The power outage combined with the increase in both BBs and Ks makes me think he's hurting. It's sapping his power and leading him to swing less (hence the increased BBs). Anyone know if he's been battling an injury?

[yeezus]

This is fun.

Eury at 22 in AA: 1.9% walks, 14.2% ks, 0 HR, .299/.325/.342. .043 ISO.
Mallex at 22 in AA: 11.3% BB, 17.1% ks, 2 HR, .340/.418/.413. .073 ISO

[yeezus]

Then no trade should ever be questioned ever.

Right, that's what i said.

[yeezus]

I'm not an insider and don't know what the alternatives were. But I can't help but note that some teams did find a way to acquire premium young hitting talent. The Cubs' trade for Addison Russell being a prime example. Another example would be the Blue Jays picking up Josh Donaldson.

What did the Cubs trade for Russell, by the way?
Toronto got a steal with Donaldson.
I think this just means we can find hitting talent.

[nsacpi]

Then can we combine Eury's AA season in 2012, too? His AA stats are 82 games vs. 40 in AAA (the stats you cherry picked). Mallex's are 57 in AA and 35 in AAA. I bet his numbers improve a lot if you give him 47 more AAA games. They're already improving a lot since his poor start.

You can combine and weight them any way you want.

[nsacpi]

What did the Cubs trade for Russell, by the way?
Toronto got a steal with Donaldson.
I think this just means we can find hitting talent.

The Cubs traded pitching for hitting in the Russell trade. They had had a view of the relative value of pitching versus hitting that is quite different from ours. And they are poised for an extremely productive off-season. Coincidence? I think not. They do not have to contend with the issue of bats being "hard to find" in John Hart's words.

[yeezus]

You can combine and weight them any way you want.

Why'd you go with the smaller sample at AAA rather than the bigger one at AA the same year?
Why not compare their age-22 AA numbers?
Let's see where Mallex's numbers end up.

[yeezus]

The Cubs traded pitching for hitting the the Russell trade. They had had a view of the relative value of pitching versus hitting that is quite different from ours.

So why is it impossible that we can eventually do the same?
Oakland thought that pitcher was worth that (which I disagree with).

[nsacpi]

Why'd you go with the smaller sample at AAA rather than the bigger one at AA the same year?
Why not compare their age-22 AA numbers?
Let's see where Mallex's numbers end up.

As I said combine and weight their numbers any way you think appropriate.

[nsacpi]

So why is it impossible that we can eventually do the same?
Oakland thought that pitcher was worth that (which I disagree with).

It isn't impossible to do the same. My critique is that we should have been doing this. Or at least been less willing to just take on the pitching just because this is what other teams offered. There is a problem with waiting. The massive glut of pitching on the FA market is going to move the exchange rate against us.

[gilesfan]

Ruiz's collapse is strange. Scouts loved the guy's ability. They all thought he was going to be a terrific hitter. The stats seemed to back it up. His BB rate was excellent and his K rate, while a little high originally, improved greatly last year.

Even this year a lot of Ruiz's peripheral stats aren't terrible. His BB rate has improved and is very, very good. He's striking out too much at 20% of his PAs but that's not terrible. It's generally in the average range.

His BAPIP is a lot lower than his career norm. His BAPIP is only .274. It's usually over .300. That seems to indicate some of his struggles have been due to bad luck but not all. If his BABIP were to jump into the .310 range he would still be having an off year.

The power outage is the most puzzling thing. Ruiz had 50 XBH in 602 PA in A+ ball last season. He had 46 in 2013 in only 472 PA. This year he has 13 in 370. Last year he averaged an XBH every 12 PA or so. This year he's averaging an XBH every 31 PA. That is concerning.

I'm hoping Ruiz has some kind of nagging injury that's depressing his numbers this year. The power outage combined with the increase in both BBs and Ks makes me think he's hurting. It's sapping his power and leading him to swing less (hence the increased BBs). Anyone know if he's been battling an injury?


Hes young so no giving up on him, but there is a reason people say hold off on judgment until at least AA.

[sturg33]

Right, that's what i said.

What you said was:

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the opinions of professionals like Hart and the FO over your and nsacpi's is hardly crazy, but you'd think it is.

Message board posters will never be professionals like Hart, thus you're implying we can't question the trade

[yeezus]

As I said combine and weight their numbers any way you think appropriate.

I am curious why you chose them, though.
Eury hit 10 points higher, with his worse ISO at both stops, FAR worse BB%, and slighly better K%.
Yeah, I'd say Mallex has been a good bit better. And he still has 159 less ABs this year than Eury that year, so let's see where his AAA numbers finish.

[yeezus]

What you said was:

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the opinions of professionals like Hart and the FO over your and nsacpi's is hardly crazy, but you'd think it is.

Message board posters will never be professionals like Hart, thus you're implying we can't question the trade

That isn't what I'm implying.
But yes, I think the notion that Hart was clueless to the market and just now getting it while people like you understood it all along is silly.

[striker42]

Hes young so no giving up on him, but there is a reason people say hold off on judgment until at least AA.

This is true. The jump to AA is one of the hardest jumps there is for a player. He's young so repeating a level isn't necessarily a bad thing. If he struggles again next year though he'll pretty much lose his prospect status.

[nsacpi]

I am curious why you chose them, though.
Eury hit 10 points higher, with his worse ISO at both stops, FAR worse BB%, and slighly better K%.
Yeah, I'd say Mallex has been a good bit better. And he still has 159 less ABs this year than Eury that year, so let's see where his AAA numbers finish.

I confess to cherry picking his AAA numbers because they were so good. Just like Mallex's AA numbers are exceptional. But we can come back at the end of the season and combine their full season age 22 data. I'm not anti Mallex. But I do think we need to be aware of how players who have put up numbers similar to him in the same leagues he is playing in their age 22 seasons have turned out in the major leagues. There is a range of outcomes. And we need to be realistic about the middle of that range where most of those outcomes are clustered.

[yeezus]

It isn't impossible to do the same. My critique is that we should have been doing this. Or at least been less willing to just take on the pitching just because this is what other teams offered. There is a problem with waiting. The massive glut of pitching on the FA market is going to move the exchange rate against us.

Should have been doing what? What should we have done? Traded Jeff Samardzija for Addison Russell (who, by the way, probably won't be better than Olivera the next 2-3 years)? Who should we have traded for Russell last year? I don't think they would've done it for Wood; Samardzija was having a fantastic, ace-like season, Wood was not the caliber of difference-maker Samardzija was perceived to be last year.

You don't get to be a baseball GM in a vacuum. You can't just say "they did this, so we should have, too." It ignores context and situations.

[yeezus]

I confess to cherry picking his AAA numbers because they were so good. Just like Mallex's AA numbers are exceptional. But we can come back at the end of the season and combine their full season age 22 data. I'm not anti Mallex. But I do think we need to be aware of how players who have put up numbers similar to him in the same leagues he is playing in their age 22 seasons have turned out in the major leagues. There is a range of outcomes. And we need to be realistic about the middle of that range where most of those outcomes are clustered.

I don't think his AAA stats were "so good," personally. .057 ISO, 4.6% BB, 116 wRC+. Good, sure. Not exceptional. Mallex's overall numbers this year are likely to be much better.

I also don't think anyone is proclaiming Mallex anything. There are definitely big question marks on him. There's also some stuff to like, and he's had pretty good results so far. I'm excited to see what he can do. He may well flop.

[Tapate50]

It isn't impossible to do the same. My critique is that we should have been doing this. Or at least been less willing to just take on the pitching just because this is what other teams offered. There is a problem with waiting. The massive glut of pitching on the FA market is going to move the exchange rate against us.

Your assumption in these deals is that quality position players were available and offered. No one could speak to this except the johns. Likely not, as everyone knows there isn't enough position players to go around.

The alternative is to take what would be viewed as lesser prospects that were available, just because they were position players is ...not sound.

[yeezus]

The Cubs two best young hitters they got at picks #2 and #4. This cannot continue to be ignored. They were fairly obvious picks that many teams make. Unless you're arguing we take a pitcher over Bryant at #2 (I would not make that argument) then this is significant. If we stunk enough to get the #2 pick (thanks, Wren! /s) we'd have Kris Bryant and all would be swell. In fact, Wren took a pitcher that year, and it wasn't a good pick in hindsight. Aaron Judge went with the next pick, after we took Hursh. So who was focused on pitching?

[yeezus]

Your assumption in these deals is that quality position players were available and offered. No one could speak to this except the johns. Likely not, as everyone knows there isn't enough position players to go around.

It's also ignoring that that trade was made when Wren was the GM. If there was a market we should've exploited, he missed it, I suppose.

[gilesfan]

Your assumption in these deals is that quality position players were available and offered. No one could speak to this except the johns. Likely not, as everyone knows there isn't enough position players to go around.

The alternative is to take what would be viewed as lesser prospects that were available, just because they were position players is ...not sound.

You make good points, but the people in charge have come out and said all offseason they were going to focus on pitching...and did throughout trades and the draft. Whether that was right or wrong; that is what happened. Then a few months later they talk about how we don't have any hitting.......

[nsacpi]

Your assumption in these deals is that quality position players were available and offered. No one could speak to this except the johns. Likely not, as everyone knows there isn't enough position players to go around.

The alternative is to take what would be viewed as lesser prospects that were available, just because they were position players is ...not sound.

I'm not an insider so I don't have details on who was available at what price. I did point out that position players like Russell and Donaldson were moved in the past year.

[yeezus]

I'm not an insider so I don't have details on who was available at what price. I did point out that position players like Russell and Donaldson were moved in the past year.

Again: Russell was moved when Wren was the GM. So apparently he missed the boat. Not sure how this falls on the Johns.
also again: The year Bryant was drafted, Wren took Hursh. Aaron Judge went a pick later. So Wren wanted pitching, too. Thing is, that pitcher hasn't worked out at all.

[Tapate50]

You make good points, but the people in charge have come out and said all offseason they were going to focus on pitching...and did throughout trades and the draft. Whether that was right or wrong; that is what happened. Then a few months later they talk about how we don't have any hitting.......

There are more than two ways to skin a cat, and no one perfect way to rebuild. We develop pitching much better than we do hitting prospects. I think we ID'd that strength and played to it. We had just as few impact pitching prospects at the time as we did hitters, which was next to nothing. Top end pitching is great currency, with a high attrition rate... show those assets as valuable and move them before they get expensive can be a great way to reload.

[nsacpi]

You make good points, but the people in charge have come out and said all offseason they were going to focus on pitching...and did throughout trades and the draft. Whether that was right or wrong; that is what happened. Then a few months later they talk about how we don't have any hitting.......

Right.

This is from the NY times in an article dated July 27.

"We’re trying to build as much upside, impact pitching, as we can." ---John Copollela

And I think this neatly summarizes what the FO was trying to do up until the Olivera trade. Pitching was the priority. Other teams offered pitching, and we were glad to take it.

[Tapate50]

I'm not an insider so I don't have details on who was available at what price. I did point out that position players like Russell and Donaldson were moved in the past year.

With pitching being the focus in both returns other than Lawrie, who was a replacement for Donaldson.

I don't think its very fair to point out that the FO is ignoring what the market does if you simply don't have any insight into if it was true or not. We haven't had any leaks or rumors to the effect we were in on position players and chose the pitchers either.

[gilesfan]

There are more than two ways to skin a cat, and no one perfect way to rebuild. We develop pitching much better than we do hitting prospects. I think we ID'd that strength and played to it. We had just as few impact pitching prospects at the time as we did hitters, which was next to nothing. Top end pitching is great currency, with a high attrition rate... show those assets as valuable and move them before they get expensive can be a great way to reload.

Do we really develop pitchers better? Heyward, McCann, Freeman, Gattis, Furcal, Salty, Andrus, Escobar, etc? I don't think we've developed pitching that matches that.

[yeezus]

Right.

This is from the NY times in an article dated July 27.

"We’re trying to build as much upside, impact pitching, as we can." ---John Copollela

And I think this neatly summarizes what the FO was trying to do up until the Olivera trade. Pitching was the priority.

I think they saw an opportunity to get an impact bat at 2B on the cheap ($$-wise) and used their glut of pitching to get it. The org. clearly loves Olivera.

[sturg33]

Do we really develop pitchers better? Heyward, McCann, Freeman, Gattis, Furcal, Salty, Andrus, Escobar, etc? I don't think we've developed pitching that matches that.

Not even close

[yeezus]

And I also think the notion that the Olivera trade signals that the FO is saying "oops!" is incorrect.

[nsacpi]

Do we really develop pitchers better? Heyward, McCann, Freeman, Gattis, Furcal, Salty, Andrus, Escobar, etc? I don't think we've developed pitching that matches that.

Yeah. This whole thing about us being better at developing pitchers is greatly overblown. You can add Prado and Simmons to the list.

[yeezus]

How on earth are Gattis, Salty, and Andrus thrown into that mix?
In that case, we can throw Minor and Hanson into the pitching side.
Gattis has been a negative on offense all year.

[yeezus]

Yeah. This whole thing about us being better at developing pitchers is greatly overblown. You can add Prado and Simmons to the list.

Simmons isn't a good hitter, though.

[sturg33]

How on earth are Gattis, Salty, and Andrus thrown into that mix?
In that case, we can throw Minor and Hanson into the pitching side.
Gattis has been a negative on offense all year.

Name the pitchers that we have developed that mat the list of hitters.

I can think of Teheran and Wood. We have a few young guys now but too early to make a judgement on them

[thethe]

Do we really develop pitchers better? Heyward, McCann, Freeman, Gattis, Furcal, Salty, Andrus, Escobar, etc? I don't think we've developed pitching that matches that.

We waited too long to trade the pitching that was developed well.

[sturg33]

We waited too long to trade the pitching that was developed well.

Not this time! We got a stud 30 year old for our young lefty

[yeezus]

Name the pitchers that we have developed that mat the list of hitters.

I can think of Teheran and Wood. We have a few young guys now but too early to make a judgement on them

Well, if we're throwing Salty, Andrus, and Gattis into the "good hitters" list, we can throw the following pitchers:

Hanson
Medlen
Beachy
Minor

Who were more productive as pitchers longer than any of those guys were as hitters. Andrus is a decent position player, but he's not some tough-to-develop player. I thought we were talking about good hitters, not just any position player in general. We could list plenty of comparable pitchers to those three.

[thethe]

Let's talk about the three headed monster relief core as well.

[yeezus]

Let's talk about the three headed monster relief core as well.

Yeah, who were each individually better than Gattis and Salty. And Andrus was heavy defense, not really hitting so much.

[smootness]

I'm not an insider and don't know what the alternatives were. But I can't help but note that some teams did find a way to acquire premium young hitting talent. The Cubs' trade for Addison Russell being a prime example. Another example would be the Blue Jays picking up Josh Donaldson.

Woah woah woah. I'm open to the idea that the Braves may have misplayed the market some, but I'll wait to see what we do this offseason.

But using these two deals doesn't really hold up. The Cubs completely fleeced the A's, no one doesn't believe that, and it was clear at the time. The A's just made an awful trade. The likelihood of someone else doing that for us is not great.

And the two best pieces given up for Donaldson were hitters. Based on their numbers, it wasn't crazy to think Lawrie could have ended up with numbers approaching Donaldson's, and they got Barreto, who is ranked higher than Albies and is another good year away from being a top-10 prospect.

And if you dislike the package the A's got for Donaldson, then perhaps it shows how tough it was to get good value when selling a good bat, even when they have much more control left than ours did.

[yeezus]

Woah woah woah. I'm open to the idea that the Braves may have misplayed the market some, but I'll wait to see what we do this offseason.

But using these two deals doesn't really hold up. The Cubs completely fleeced the A's, no one doesn't believe that, and it was clear at the time. The A's just made an awful trade. The likelihood of someone else doing that for us is not great.


And again, I also think it's important to point out that Wren was the GM when the Samardzija trade was made, so using it as a critique of the current FO is flimsy at best.

[gilesfan]

Let's talk about the three headed monster relief core as well.

Kimbrel- 12.2 WAR
Venters- 3.0 WAR
Medlen- 5.5 WAR
Beachy- 4.8 WAR
Minor- 6.9 WAR
Teheran- 6.3 WAR

McCann- 33.1 WAR
Heyward 24.8 WAR
Freeman 13.4 WAR


Feel free to add to the list, but I don't think the numbers are going to come anywhere close.

[thethe]

The discrepancy in WAR is based on the playing time. The quality of pitcher we have developed is on par but they are getting hurt too quickly. That's why I think they traded Wood.

[gilesfan]

[/SIZE]
The discrepancy in WAR is based on the playing time. The quality of pitcher we have developed is on par but they are getting hurt too quickly. That's why I think they traded Wood.

So players that play more are worth more?

Alex Wood is significantly better than the Hanson/Jurrjens/etc group. Its not even really close.

[yeezus]

The discrepancy in WAR is based on the playing time. The quality of pitcher we have developed is on par but they are getting hurt too quickly. That's why I think they traded Wood.

Right, it's not goal-post moving. Before it was pure volume, and Salty was on the list. Now it's total WAR.

The fact that pitchers get hurt so often is a great argument for stocking up on them.

[yeezus]

Wood's career thus far has been about on par with what Tommy did for us for a few seasons.

[thethe]

[/SIZE]

So players that play more are worth more?

Alex Wood is significantly better than the Hanson/Jurrjens/etc group. Its not even really close.

Yup and we developed him and hopefully made the right decision on the timing to trade him.

Using WAR is misleading to the original argument though and I think you knownthis.

[sturg33]

The discrepancy in WAR is based on the playing time. The quality of pitcher we have developed is on par but they are getting hurt too quickly. That's why I think they traded Wood.

Good thing we traded him for a player who has a miraculous history of good health

[gilesfan]

Yup and we developed him and hopefully made the right decision on the timing to trade him.

Using WAR is misleading to the original argument though and I think you knownthis.

Because you believe developing relief pitchers is as valuable as developing an everyday catcher?

ANy way you look at it, the Braves have developed way more hitting than pitching over the last decade or so. It's not even close.

[thethe]

Because you believe developing relief pitchers is as valuable as developing an everyday catcher?

ANy way you look at it, the Braves have developed way more hitting than pitching over the last decade or so. It's not even close.

No, they've developed more value from their hitters. Not more talented guys.

[gilesfan]

No, they've developed more value from their hitters. Not more talented guys.

How many pitchers have we developed that were legitimate top 10 prospects in baseball or performed like they should have been rated that highl?

[thethe]

How many pitchers have we developed that were legitimate top 10 prospects in baseball or performed like they should have been rated that highl?

Weren't both Hanson and Teheran top 10 at one point?

[smootness]

How many pitchers have we developed that were legitimate top 10 prospects in baseball or performed like they should have been rated that highl?

Teheran and Hanson off the top of my head.

I think the reason many believe we've developed pitching better is because of where a lot of the quality pitchers have come from...Beachy and Medlen were both non-prospects, Hanson came from very late in the draft, Minor was drafted high but became better than anyone thought possible, etc.

For the most part, the successful hitters we've developed always seemed to have more natural talent than a lot of the pitchers.

Also, the fact that from about 2008 until now, there hasn't been much in terms of hitting talent that has come through the system. You didn't hear much about not developing hitters up until that point. But since Heyward and Freeman became prospects, it's pretty much just Simmons that's come along since, and he's never been considered a bat.

That recent history has a lot of bearing on what people think of the way we develop.

[Enscheff]

You have to think pretty highly about your baseball intelligence to come out and say something along the lines of, "I can easily see that hitting is more valuable than pitching right now, while the front office minds known as Hart, Coppy and JS are too stupid to understand this obvious fact and have now painted themselves into a corner where they will never be able to assemble a decent lineup".

Fact of the matter is the Braves DID try to accumulate young impact arms. Why? Because pitchers break down...all the time. In my opinion, the best way to mitigate the impact of that simple fact is to grow your own cheap pitchers, ride them until they break, and then replace them with a newer model. How do you accomplish that? By stockpiling young impact arms.

If you have a $120M payroll, where would you prefer to spend your $20M per year on an elite talent? On a pitcher that is one pitch away from being useless, or a position player who is much less likely to suffer a career ending injury? Are you going to pay Freddie Freeman, or CC Sabathia?

It's pretty clear to me the Braves plan to grow pitchers and buy hitting. If they can get an impact bat for cheap, like Olivera, they will trade away some of that pitching to get him. Seems like a very logical plan to me, especially given the fact they can't afford to have a broken down pitcher on the payroll making $20M+.

And enough with citing the Cubs model...give the Braves those draft picks and I bet their farm system would look much the same as the Cubs currently does. Same thing with the stupid Nats...give the Braves consecutive #1 picks when 2 generational talents are available, move them into a huge market with a brand new stadium, and I bet they suddenly look like a great franchise. Ditto the Astros and their plethora of high picks. The Braves have built their organization despite mediocre draft positions for decades.

[gilesfan]

And enough with citing the Cubs model...give the Braves those draft picks and I bet their farm system would look much the same as the Cubs currently does. Same thing with the stupid Nats...give the Braves consecutive #1 picks when 2 generational talents are available, move them into a huge market with a brand new stadium, and I bet they suddenly look like a great franchise. Ditto the Astros and their plethora of high picks. The Braves have built their organization despite mediocre draft positions for decades.


The Cubs/Nats systems/recent callups is a heck of a lot more than simply 2 draft picks. People always make that argument like if the Cubs didn't have Bryant/Schwarber; they would have nothing. They would still have all their other prospects plus whatever first round picks they would have had instead of Bryant/Schwarber

[Chico]

You have to think pretty highly about your baseball intelligence to come out and say something along the lines of, "I can easily see that hitting is more valuable than pitching right now, while the front office minds known as Hart, Coppy and JS are too stupid to understand this obvious fact and have now painted themselves into a corner where they will never be able to assemble a decent lineup".

Fact of the matter is the Braves DID try to accumulate young impact arms. Why? Because pitchers break down...all the time. In my opinion, the best way to mitigate the impact of that simple fact is to grow your own cheap pitchers, ride them until they break, and then replace them with a newer model. How do you accomplish that? By stockpiling young impact arms.

If you have a $120M payroll, where would you prefer to spend your $20M per year on an elite talent? On a pitcher that is one pitch away from being useless, or a position player who is much less likely to suffer a career ending injury? Are you going to pay Freddie Freeman, or CC Sabathia?

It's pretty clear to me the Braves plan to grow pitchers and buy hitting. If they can get an impact bat for cheap, like Olivera, they will trade away some of that pitching to get him. Seems like a very logical plan to me, especially given the fact they can't afford to have a broken down pitcher on the payroll making $20M+.

And enough with citing the Cubs model...give the Braves those draft picks and I bet their farm system would look much the same as the Cubs currently does. Same thing with the stupid Nats...give the Braves consecutive #1 picks when 2 generational talents are available, move them into a huge market with a brand new stadium, and I bet they suddenly look like a great franchise. Ditto the Astros and their plethora of high picks. The Braves have built their organization despite mediocre draft positions for decades.

I agree with this. Pitchers are becoming more and more like RB's in the NFL. Stockpile them, ride them hard, and pawn them off on someone else when they get expensive or exposed. I like this model. The Rays have been doing very well with this out of necessity.

[yeezus]

People always make that argument like if the Cubs didn't have Bryant/Schwarber; they would have nothing.

Since I'm on ignore from him, I'd like someone else to answer: who has made this argument, or anything close? They have a lot of pieces. Everyone knows this.

Schwarber and Bryant are, indeed, their two best young position players, however. They got them at #2 and #4. That is important. AGAIN: If we stunk enough to get Bryant, this bitching would be quieter. But, we didn't. We didn't get the #2 pick and the chance to get one of the top young players in the entire game.

So yes, their two best young players came by way of being really bad and getting great draft picks. If you want to make the argument we take a pitcher over a guy like Bryant, be my guest. I'd love to hear it. Maybe Wren would have, though, as he took Hursh one pick before Judge. But that should be pinned on Hart, I suppose.

Oh yeah and while we're at it, who did the offense-focused Astros take over Bryant? What position did he play? Hm..

[nsacpi]

You have to think pretty highly about your baseball intelligence to come out and say something along the lines of, "I can easily see that hitting is more valuable than pitching right now, while the front office minds known as Hart, Coppy and JS are too stupid to understand this obvious fact and have now painted themselves into a corner where they will never be able to assemble a decent lineup".

Fact of the matter is the Braves DID try to accumulate young impact arms. Why? Because pitchers break down...all the time. In my opinion, the best way to mitigate the impact of that simple fact is to grow your own cheap pitchers, ride them until they break, and then replace them with a newer model. How do you accomplish that? By stockpiling young impact arms.

If you have a $120M payroll, where would you prefer to spend your $20M per year on an elite talent? On a pitcher that is one pitch away from being useless, or a position player who is much less likely to suffer a career ending injury? Are you going to pay Freddie Freeman, or CC Sabathia?

It's pretty clear to me the Braves plan to grow pitchers and buy hitting. If they can get an impact bat for cheap, like Olivera, they will trade away some of that pitching to get him. Seems like a very logical plan to me, especially given the fact they can't afford to have a broken down pitcher on the payroll making $20M+.

And enough with citing the Cubs model...give the Braves those draft picks and I bet their farm system would look much the same as the Cubs currently does. Same thing with the stupid Nats...give the Braves consecutive #1 picks when 2 generational talents are available, move them into a huge market with a brand new stadium, and I bet they suddenly look like a great franchise. Ditto the Astros and their plethora of high picks. The Braves have built their organization despite mediocre draft positions for decades.

So no chance of the Braves pursuing Price or Cueto this off-season right?

[yeezus]

You have to think pretty highly about your baseball intelligence to come out and say something along the lines of, "I can easily see that hitting is more valuable than pitching right now, while the front office minds known as Hart, Coppy and JS are too stupid to understand this obvious fact and have now painted themselves into a corner where they will never be able to assemble a decent lineup".



Yup.

[Chico]

You mean Miller, Jenkins, Fried, Folty, Thurman, Ruiz, Jace, and Mallex for Braun and Lucroy?

They'd offer to give Hart a happy ending.

[Tapate50]

The Cubs/Nats systems/recent callups is a heck of a lot more than simply 2 draft picks. People always make that argument like if the Cubs didn't have Bryant/Schwarber; they would have nothing. They would still have all their other prospects plus whatever first round picks they would have had instead of Bryant/Schwarber

They have drafted very well, but the fact remains they needed EXTREMELY high draft picks in each round and truckloads of money to assemble those rosters (Soler on the intl mkt, Lester last season). Frankly, two advantages we have never had the pleasure (save chipper jones pick- and look how that turned out) of having.

So I guess if the Cubs\Nats picked where the Braves did every year prior to this, you are saying they would still be stocked because they draft THAT much better?

[Chico]

They have drafted very well, but the fact remains they needed EXTREMELY high draft picks and truckloads of money to assemble those rosters (Soler on the intl mkt). Frankly, two advantages we have never had the pleasure (save chipper jones pick) of having.

They've also been rebuilding for 3 or 4 years. We've been doing it for a year. If we weren't trying to be competitive until 2018, I'm sure we'd have a darn good system by then.

[gilesfan]

They have drafted very well, but the fact remains they needed EXTREMELY high draft picks in each round and truckloads of money to assemble those rosters (Soler on the intl mkt, Lester last season). Frankly, two advantages we have never had the pleasure (save chipper jones pick- and look how that turned out) of having.

So I guess if the Cubs\Nats picked where the Braves did every year prior to this, you are saying they would still be stocked because they draft THAT much better?

The Cubs have a top 5; maybe top 10 farm system right now despite all the guys graduating, including Solder, Bryant, Schwaber.

In the last few years, yes each have drafted significantly better.

[sturg33]

AGAIN: If we stunk enough to get Bryant, this bitching would be quieter. But, we didn't.

.

Sounds like Wren's fault. DAMN HIM

[thewupk]

Sounds like Wren's fault. DAMN HIM

I agree. Maybe if we sucked so hard while he was here ou farm system would have been better and maybe he would have kept his job?

[NYCBrave]

You have to think pretty highly about your baseball intelligence to come out and say something along the lines of, "I can easily see that hitting is more valuable than pitching right now, while the front office minds known as Hart, Coppy and JS are too stupid to understand this obvious fact and have now painted themselves into a corner where they will never be able to assemble a decent lineup".

Fact of the matter is the Braves DID try to accumulate young impact arms. Why? Because pitchers break down...all the time. In my opinion, the best way to mitigate the impact of that simple fact is to grow your own cheap pitchers, ride them until they break, and then replace them with a newer model. How do you accomplish that? By stockpiling young impact arms.

If you have a $120M payroll, where would you prefer to spend your $20M per year on an elite talent? On a pitcher that is one pitch away from being useless, or a position player who is much less likely to suffer a career ending injury? Are you going to pay Freddie Freeman, or CC Sabathia?

It's pretty clear to me the Braves plan to grow pitchers and buy hitting. If they can get an impact bat for cheap, like Olivera, they will trade away some of that pitching to get him. Seems like a very logical plan to me, especially given the fact they can't afford to have a broken down pitcher on the payroll making $20M+.

And enough with citing the Cubs model...give the Braves those draft picks and I bet their farm system would look much the same as the Cubs currently does. Same thing with the stupid Nats...give the Braves consecutive #1 picks when 2 generational talents are available, move them into a huge market with a brand new stadium, and I bet they suddenly look like a great franchise. Ditto the Astros and their plethora of high picks. The Braves have built their organization despite mediocre draft positions for decades.

Very great points made here, and the "grow pitching / buy hitting" plan is logical to me. Only issue with that is, buying hitting hasn't worked out so well for us in recent memory, so that is scary.

[nsacpi]

Very great points made here, and the "grow pitching / buy hitting" plan is logical to me. Only issue with that is, buying hitting hasn't worked out so well for us in recent memory, so that is scary.

It is very logical. But will they follow that plan. Or will they pursue guys like Price and Cueto.

[yeezus]

Sounds like Wren's fault. DAMN HIM

agreed.

[Tapate50]

It is very logical. But will they follow that plan. Or will they pursue guys like Price and Cueto.

Maybe they just identify the best values rather than clinging to only one school of thought leading to missed opportunity , no?

[NYCBrave]

It is very logical. But will they follow that plan. Or will they pursue guys like Price and Cueto.

Unfortunately I think we have no choice. I don't think we have an ace coming through our pipeline. In addition, I don't feel confident in signing either of those

[nsacpi]

Maybe they just identify the best values rather than clinging to only one school of thought leading to missed opportunity , no?

There is a lot to choose from. So probably best to look for value than focusing on a particular guy.

[Enscheff]

So no chance of the Braves pursuing Price or Cueto this off-season right?

I certainly hope not. If the Braves are going to tie up $200M in one player I would prefer it be a position player, who has a much greater chance of contributing to the MLB team for the duration of the contract. All long term contracts are risky, but pitchers are much riskier than position players.

For the record, I am not against giving a guy like Kazmir something along the lines of $40M over 3 years to fill a slot in the rotation with a veteran, but I don't want to see the Braves stuck with huge contract for a dead armed pitcher. You asked in another thread if folks would rather buy Price/Zobrist or Heyward/Buerhle. No matter the names involved, I would rather commit to the position player and fill in with FA pitchers as needed.

[auyushu]

Yeah. This whole thing about us being better at developing pitchers is greatly overblown. You can add Prado and Simmons to the list.

Yeah, one of the more baffling things to me is how people defend the Braves spending early draft picks on pitching and say "It's the Braves way!" or "It's what the Braves do well!" when the results of this strategy in the early rounds has been very poor over the past 20-25 years. I mean, how many truly successful pitchers have we gotten from the top 2 rounds over the past 25 years or so (and by successful I mean starting pitchers who have career ERAs of 4.25 or better, making them solid #4 starters at least).

From 1990 on we have Jason Marquis (4.61 career ERA), Adam Wainwright, Mike Minor (4.10 career ERA), and Jeff Locke (4.08 career ERA). So in 25 years of 1st, supplemental, and 2nd round picks we have one Ace, 2 4th starters, and 1 5th starter to show for it. That's actually very poor, not something to crow about. Most of the Braves pitching success from the draft has come from later round grabs like Millwood and Hanson, or international signings.

We've actually been tremendously more successful going after hitters in the early rounds, particularly with our second rounders.