Prospect digest 10 prospect listing

[thethe]

http://www.prospectdigest.com/2017/02/07/the-2017-atlanta-braves-top-10-prospects/

[thethe]

That's quite the aggressive ranking for Gohara. The write ups overall are great though.

[bravesfanMatt]

having Gohard as our best LHP is a bit of a stretch. He was great last year, but like Touki and Fried.. I need more before moving them ahead of even the likes of Newk..

[thethe]

That statistic about Albies and Trout is amazing.

[thethe]

having Gohard as our best LHP is a bit of a stretch. He was great last year, but like Touki and Fried.. I need more before moving them ahead of even the likes of Newk..

He has the stuff and build to be a TOR pitcher. I think everyone tries to look for linear progression but that's just not the case. At any point in time a prospect can bust or breakout. Seems like the scouts think Gohara is ready to break out in a big way

[bravesfanMatt]

He has the stuff and build to be a TOR pitcher. I think everyone tries to look for linear progression but that's just not the case. At any point in time a prospect can bust or breakout. Seems like the scouts think Gohara is ready to break out in a big way

I agree.. but now he has to sustain that for me to move him. Just like Fried and Touki.. even Newk to a level... all have to repeat their improvements. If they do, they fly up the boards imo..

[bravesfanMatt]

That statistic about Albies and Trout is amazing.

That was kinda cool.

[Enscheff]

Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.

However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.

Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.

[UNCBlue012]

This was a ... unique list. But I liked it. You guys are right, the write-ups are super solid. Gohara being number 4 is a bit silly, but it would be great if he can get that high

[bravesfanMatt]

This was a ... unique list. But I liked it. You guys are right, the write-ups are super solid. Gohara being number 4 is a bit silly, but it would be great if he can get that high

I wasn't saying he couldn't make it that high.. just don't think he is there yet. He needs to report in shape and repeat that season. if he does.. then he is blasting up the list for me. He will be like Newk.. a TOR ceiling or High leverage RP floor...

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.

However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.

Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.

I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuña in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuña? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.

Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.

[smootness]

Best thing about this write-up is that the guy goes back and owns up to the bad projections he made. He then breaks it down in an attempt to analyze and learn from it. That is a sign of a sound logical thinker.

However, he is clearly just scouting the stat line, and sprinkling in recent draft picks based on where they were selected. I wouldn't be surprised if he hasn't watched a single one of these prospects in person, and has zero scouting acumen.

Finally, any Braves Top 10 list that excludes Acuna is pretty poor, and shows the list has zero foundation in scouting. In fact, it means the author also has zero connections inside the industry and bases his rankings on zero professionally compiled information.

Yep, I like the info and his willingness to both have strong opinions that differ from the norm, and to own up when he's wrong.

I don't really mind the fact that he's just scouting the stat line. It obviously makes his rankings even more of a crapshoot, but because pretty much every list includes some scouting, I think it can be good to just see where guys stack up on pure numbers. And his CAL model looks intriguing. One thing's for sure - that model LOOOOOOVES Albies. Lindor, Profar, Machado, and JP Crawford as his top 4 comps? Uh...

[bravesfanMatt]

Yep, I like the info and his willingness to both have strong opinions that differ from the norm, and to own up when he's wrong.

I don't really mind the fact that he's just scouting the stat line. It obviously makes his rankings even more of a crapshoot, but because pretty much every list includes some scouting, I think it can be good to just see where guys stack up on pure numbers. And his CAL model looks intriguing. One thing's for sure - that model LOOOOOOVES Albies. Lindor, Profar, Machado, and JP Crawford as his top 4 comps? Uh...

So MY take away from this is that Ozzie is mix of Trout and Lindor... cool!!

[Enscheff]

I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuña in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuña? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.

Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.

So Acuna is out of the Top 10 based on limited data, but Maitan, Anderson and Allard are in despite limited data?

The guy is clearly doing nothing but scouting the stat line, and then sprinkling in guys like Anderson and Maitan based on where they were or would be drafted. He literally said as much in the Maitan blurb.

No other credible prospect list has Acuna outside the Braves Top 10. It is laughable for any "expert" to exclude him.

[clvclv]

I disagree that it's ridiculous not to have Acuña in the top 10. He has a pretty small sample (that I'm sure this guy hasn't seen), and he hasn't made it to AA. Do I agree with Riley ahead of Acuña? Heck no, but I can see why someone could.

Also, I think his goal is to use data analytics to have more success in predicting breakout candidates.


How dare you!?!?! Questioning the unquestioned one is an unpardonable offense.

[bravesfanMatt]

So Acuna is out of the Top 10 based on limited data, but Maitan, Anderson and Allard are in despite limited data?

The guy is clearly doing nothing but scouting the stat line, and then sprinkling in guys like Anderson and Maitan based on where they were or would be drafted. He literally said as much in the Maitan blurb.

No other credible prospect list has Acuna outside the Braves Top 10. It is laughable for any "expert" to exclude him.


Not really going to question any list for the Braves since I think 3-12 are all open for debate IMO. I think Acuna could be as high as 4 and could make a case for 10th best. So I don't have too much beef with this. I disagree, but not going to completely dismiss him..

[Enscheff]

Not really going to question any list for the Braves since I think 3-12 are all open for debate IMO. I think Acuna could be as high as 4 and could make a case for 10th best. So I don't have too much beef with this. I disagree, but not going to completely dismiss him..

I can appreciate that point of view, but a prospect guy has to be consistent. If Acuna hasn't proven enough, then neither has Maitan, Anderson or Allard.

[Enscheff]

How dare you!?!?! Questioning the unquestioned one is an unpardonable offense.

Another insightful gem by the resident genius.

Care to impart some more wisdom on us like you did with your Sale trade proposal?

[The Chosen One]

Another insightful gem by the resident genius.

Care to impart some more wisdom on us like you did with your Sale trade proposal?

Please.

[TheBravos]

My take on this....it really reminds me how bad the Simmons trade has turned out. To think what we gave up to get Gohara and then realize the ONLY player we have left that we received from the Simmons trade is Newcomb. I agree Gohara is way high, but comparing their ages...he IS probably the better prospect. If Newcomb doesn't become AT least a solid #2 starter....this trade was down right horrible.

[smootness]

My take on this....it really reminds me how bad the Simmons trade has turned out. To think what we gave up to get Gohara and then realize the ONLY player we have left that we received from the Simmons trade is Newcomb. I agree Gohara is way high, but comparing their ages...he IS probably the better prospect. If Newcomb doesn't becaome AT least a solid #2 starter....this trade was down right horrible.

The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.

And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.

If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.

[TheBravos]

I can appreciate that point of view, but a prospect guy has to be consistent. If Acuna hasn't proven enough, then neither has Maitan, Anderson or Allard.

Yes agreed. Just like when Max was left off the lefty top 10 prospect list because the guy wanted to "see more"...after he helped win the league, but he had Groome on his list.

[TheBravos]

The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.

And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.

If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.

Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.

I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.

I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.

[bravesfanMatt]

The Gohara deal was a great deal, though. It's not really fair to expect the same of every deal or to compare others that way, just like it isn't fair to compare any other deals to what we got for Miller.

And the Simmons deal was always for Newcomb; the other pieces were pretty meaningless overall. But yeah, it definitely doesn't look as good now as it did then, when it was probably about an even deal. Aybar was hot garbage, Ellis was alright and traded, and Newcomb didn't take a big step forward. I do think most of the prospects rankings are too bearish on Newcomb, though. He's basically in the same spot he was when we got him - and while treading water usually causes you to lose prospect momentum, it doesn't necessarily mean he's much less likely to hit his ceiling.

If we could have that one back, we might take it back. But we would still be looking to shop Simmons, and trades for prospects don't always work out.

I wouldn't say 'all about Newk'.. he was a big piece, but Ellis was in their top 5 (weak system I know) if I recall correctly and maybe #2 pitcher. He has a good profile of missing bats. Just another guy who can't control his stuff.. I think the FO is very upset about the Simmons trade and wanted more from Aybar and Ellis..

maybe Cade or Jamie can pan out or return us something...

[Enscheff]

Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.

I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.

I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.

Aybar killed the Braves twice. He was terrible, so he couldn't be flipped for anything useful at the deadline. There was also some chatter immediately after the trade was made that if he put up his typical 2-3 WAR season he would have been extended a QO and netted the Braves another draft pick.

Needless to say, none of that came about.

Realistically, the only trade that has turned out well for the Braves is the Heyward -> Miller -> Swanson/Inciarte string of trades, and that success relied on the complete ineptitude of Dave Stewart. None of the other trades have produced much of anything.

[smootness]

Aybar killed us...he could have been flipped immediately because he was still considered a good player before he played with us. I agree the trade was always about Newcomb, but Simmons wasn't your average player. You really need two impact players to let him go.

I agree that they have been tough on Newcomb (mainly because of his age). There were also plenty of concerns about him before the trade was made. The reason we chose this trade (just like others), is that he was a big lefty. I feel we could have gotten a better return, because outside of Newcomb....the Angel's farm was horrid.

I was ok with trading Simmons, but because of his age, talent and being he was locked up long term on the cheap...we probably could have sit on him (no hurry), and waited for the Shelby Miller type offer. He is a special player.

We were likely never going to get anything close to a Miller offer. This is what I'm talking about in terms of taking legitimately great deals and comparing everything else to them.

[thethe]

The only trade which was good for the heyward deal? Really?

[TheBravos]

We were likely never going to get anything close to a Miller offer. This is what I'm talking about in terms of taking legitimately great deals and comparing everything else to them.

Agreed, but we could have definitely gotten two great prospects from a team with a better farm (instead of one high prospect, and a MLB player...I barely count Ellis). Coppy was really counting on flipping Aybar for another great prospect. In his defense....who would have thought Aybar would have played as badly as he did(and he probably did that because the Angels had no one else we wanted). Some of the trade factors like that were just bad luck. Still...when you trade a guy like Simmons, you can't put all of your eggs in one basket (we all know the prospect fail rate...especially for pitchers). I just feel there was probably a better deal out there. Of course, doesn't really matter at this point lol...I'm rooting for Newcomb. I'm hoping he has a break out year.

[striker42]

The only trade which was good for the heyward deal? Really?

Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.

[TheBravos]

Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.

I think he was saying that the only deal that has produced fruit. All of the guys (promising as they may be), are still prospects. There is a chance none pan out (although I doubt that's the case). By the numbers, the Shelby trade is the only trade that has proven to pay off. All the others have been labeled fails or "wait and see".

[thethe]

Apparently he forgot about the Justin Upton deal. One year of Upton for Fried, Gohara (formerly Mallex), Jace, and Dustin Peterson. That's a pretty nice haul. While it's possible none of those guys turn into anything we could easily package all of them together and get a very, very nice return just based on their current value.

And so many more. Braves went from the worst farm system to the best in 2 years and has been the best for 2 two years running with signs that a 3rd year in a row is almost a certainty.

I just don't get that comment at all.

[thethe]

I think he was saying that the only deal that has produced fruit. All of the guys (promising as they may be), are still prospects. There is a chance none pan out (although I doubt that's the case). By the numbers, the Shelby trade is the only trade that has proven to pay off. All the others have been labeled fails or "wait and see".

But just because players bust doesn't mean they weren't good trades. In no world 's the touissant deal anything but a great deal even though touki may never pitch a MLB inning

[TheBravos]

But just because players bust doesn't mean they weren't good trades. In no world 's the touissant deal anything but a great deal even though touki may never pitch a MLB inning

Yes , I agree with you. If a player never plays a MLB game with(or never even gets there)....it can't be considered a "good" trade though. It would be considered a good "gamble" like A Jackson and a valid reason to trade. All prospects are gambles and you take a low risk or a high risk (which validates the trade). Trades have to produce MLB players to be considered good in my opinion.

[striker42]

Yes , I agree with you. If a player never plays a MLB game with(or never even gets there)....it can't be considered a "good" trade though. It would be considered a good "gamble" like A Jackson and a valid reason to trade. All prospects are gambles and you take a low risk or a high risk (which validates the trade). Trades have to produce MLB players to be considered good in my opinion.

I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.

[bravesfanMatt]

I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.

This.. many teams improve by trading prospects.. That is why you collect so many. To replenish by using them or trading them.

[TheBravos]

I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.


And when we make that trade or develop those players into MLB players...it makes it a successful trade. Look...don't get me wrong here. I love our farm. I love what they are doing. I think we should be patient and build a farm foundation that will last us for a decade or longer.

It is all a gamble. Even a slam dunk prospect (if there is such a thing), can blow a arm or a knee out. You can have the best farm ever assembled. You can make good trades (which are really good gambles), with the info you have on hand. At some point...it has to produce MLB players either by trading prospects or developing them.

The White Sox received a haul for Sale. I think we could all agree with that. No one would argue that they didn't maximize his value. Still, if none of those players really pan out, it ends up being a bad trade because it didn't produce.

I am agreeing with you. We have received a TON of prospect value. We have one of the top (if not the top), farms in all of baseball. It "should" produce many MLB players either thru trade or development. The jury is still out though on many of the trades.

It's the same as rating a draft and then going back three years later and doing it again.

[Enscheff]

I disagree. Good prospects have a present trade value. If we trade a guy and get a package of prospects that appreciate in value, then the trade probably can be considered good at that point. What we possess is now worth more than what we traded. However, if the next year all the prospects bust then the mistake is not selling high.

Right, and if they convert those assets into players that produce MLB value, they will have succeeded.

However, as of now, nothing other than the gift from the DBacks has produced anything. The stated goal was to compete by 2017, and the trades made to achieve that goal have largely failed.

Additionally, none of the non-DBacks prospects acquired have increased in value other than perhaps Fried. The list of prospects recently acquired via trade whose value has substantially deteriorated is extensive. I won't bother listing them all, but Newcomb, Jenkins, Blair, Touki, etc, etc, have all lost a lot of the value they held before being acquired by the Braves. Notice a trend? They are all pitchers, which is what the Braves have decided to focus on.

So no, I would not call this rebuild a resounding success, nor would I say Coppy is doing a wonderful job. His piloting of this rebuild is mediocre, at best. I'm pretty sure any other GM could have done just as well, or better, given the same set of circumstances.

[thethe]

What could coppy have done to make this rebuild better?

[TheBravos]

What could coppy have done to make this rebuild better?

I don't agree that he's done an average job. I think he has done a good job, but has been bitten a few times for being agressive (it happens). They did kinda switch horses midstream though, from a partial rebuild to a full rebuild (which is where they should have started). In saying that, it could have been more of Hart's idea at the time and not Coppy's (he hadn't been given full power yet)...who knows.

[thethe]

I don't agree that he's done an average job. I think he has done a good job, but has been bitten a few times for being agressive (it happens). They did kinda switch horses midstream though, from a partial rebuild to a full rebuild (which is where they should have started). In saying that, it could have been more of Hart's idea at the time and not Coppy's (he hadn't been given full power yet)...who knows.

And of course no GM is 100%.

But the Braves haven't been this well positioned in almost a decade...maybe longer.

[bravesfanMatt]

You don't move from the worst farm to a top 3 in 2 years a grade the GM with a C. That is overly pessimistic.. Look at the talent traded.. We traded good players.. not perianal all stars. Kimbrell was the cream of the crop and we attached BJ to him. I think we can question certain FO moves and certainly not give them an A+.. but they still have amassed a large pool of high upside talent. And that is to be commended. I think if Newk and one of the top three from 2016 draft (Ian, Muller, wentz) goes south this year, then his grade drops to a C for me. I am sitting on a solid B and if Newk steps up he moves to the A- territory.

I am sorry, but Newk is tied to a generational talent (defensively) and Ian, Muller, Wentz will always be tied together for me. We passed on better talent to pool the money. I won't believe anything else personally. so those two deals are the fulcrum of my evaluation...

[50PoundHead]

No Ryan Weber?

[Enscheff]

You don't move from the worst farm to a top 3 in 2 years a grade the GM with a C. That is overly pessimistic.. Look at the talent traded.. We traded good players.. not perianal all stars. Kimbrell was the cream of the crop and we attached BJ to him. I think we can question certain FO moves and certainly not give them an A+.. but they still have amassed a large pool of high upside talent. And that is to be commended. I think if Newk and one of the top three from 2016 draft (Ian, Muller, wentz) goes south this year, then his grade drops to a C for me. I am sitting on a solid B and if Newk steps up he moves to the A- territory.

I am sorry, but Newk is tied to a generational talent (defensively) and Ian, Muller, Wentz will always be tied together for me. We passed on better talent to pool the money. I won't believe anything else personally. so those two deals are the fulcrum of my evaluation...

It all depends on how much credit you give Coppy for Stewart making a terrible deal. Given all his other moves, I think Coppy was just lucky to be the beneficiary of Stewart making a bad deal. Right place, right time.

If you blow up a team, fleece the dumbest GM in the game for Swanson and Inciarte, and then pick at the top of the draft, you better have a Top 5 system in the game. I think any competent GM would have done similarly well.

A good GM would have acquired assets that have increased in value since their acquisition. A good GM would have realized rebuilding teams don't need to free up money for non-competitive years by attaching BJ to Kimbrel. A good GM would understand position players are more valuable than pitching prospects, and would build the sys

[Southcack77]

It all depends on how much credit you give Coppy for Stewart making a terrible deal. Given all his other moves, I think Coppy was just lucky to be the beneficiary of Stewart making a bad deal. Right place, right time.

If you blow up a team, fleece the dumbest GM in the game for Swanson and Inciarte, and then pick at the top of the draft, you better have a Top 5 system in the game. I think any competent GM would have done similarly well.

A good GM would have acquired assets that have increased in value since their acquisition. A good GM would have realized rebuilding teams don't need to free up money for non-competitive years by attaching BJ to Kimbrel. A good GM would understand position players are more valuable than pitching prospects, and would build the sys

And just like that...

[thethe]

It all depends on how much credit you give Coppy for Stewart making a terrible deal. Given all his other moves, I think Coppy was just lucky to be the beneficiary of Stewart making a bad deal. Right place, right time.

If you blow up a team, fleece the dumbest GM in the game for Swanson and Inciarte, and then pick at the top of the draft, you better have a Top 5 system in the game. I think any competent GM would have done similarly well.

A good GM would have acquired assets that have increased in value since their acquisition. A good GM would have realized rebuilding teams don't need to free up money for non-competitive years by attaching BJ to Kimbrel. A good GM would understand position players are more valuable than pitching prospects, and would build the sys

Why are hitters more valuable than pitchers?

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Being at the right place at the right time and convincing a sucker to trade with you is a skill. If it were that easy to convince a fool to trade with you, other teams would have had more lopsided trades with the Diamondbacks. We had two as it happened, which is pretty impressive considering both were huge robberies.

A fool and his money may be easily parted, but it takes skill to be the one it's parted to twice.

I would also argue Touki's stock is on the rise and D Pete is slightly more highly thought of than at the time of the Upton trade. Similar with a lot of our acquired guys, actually.

[TheBravos]

And just like that...

I mean he does have a valid point. Take away the Shelby heist (which we all agree was a unrealistic lucky return),and the rebuild is in a much different place. A good GM "should" be able to build a farm by trading most of his assets(See SD, And W Sox for examples). Coppy has done that and I like many of his moves. I give him a solid B, the with chance to be even an A+ depending on how our pitching prospects turn out.

They did change strategy mid way through this rebuild. These were the things I have not agreed with.
1. We had no reason to clear BJ's contract that quick. Weren't going to be competitive and could have gotten a huge return for Kimbrel.
2. HO trade was the biggest "what the??" Of the rebuild. Gave away assets and got nothing in return.
3. Should have done way better on the Simmons trade.
If these trades were handled better, we would have the best farm hands down. We "theoretically" could have another four to five high end prospects.

All in all he has done well though, and the Shelby trade basically cancels out the harm of the HO trade...which still to this day baffles my mind.

[thethe]

If we don't trade BJ do we have Touki?

[TheBravos]

If we don't trade BJ do we have Touki?

Yes, by not signing Markakis, which was not a rebuild move.

[thethe]

Yes, by not signing Markakis, which was not a rebuild move.

Bottoming out to the extent youre talking about has other ramifications not included in your analysis.

[TheBravos]

We did bottom out lol. At one point last year, we were on course to have the worst record and maybe the worst offense in baseball...ever.

When rebuilding (just like this year), if you sign vets...it's to short term reasonable deals. You just don't sign a vet coming off neck surgery never the less, to a 10+ mil a year deal over four years. The only way you do that, is if you plan to not do a full rebuild (which they didn't in the beginning). They could have signed a productive vet on a short term deal.

I've given Coppy props. I said I have liked many things he has done. Surely you don't like every move has made? Do you?

[thethe]

We did bottom out lol. At one point last year, we were on course to have the worst record and maybe the worst offense in baseball...ever.

When rebuilding (just like this year), if you sign vets...it's to short term reasonable deals. You just don't sign a vet coming off neck surgery never the less, to a 10+ mil a year deal over four years. The only way you do that, is if you plan to not do a full rebuild (which they didn't in the beginning). They could have signed a productive vet the a short term deal.

I've given Coppy props. I said I have liked many things he has done. Surely you don't like every move has made? Do you?

I don't like to judge deals after the fact so the HO trade isn't as bad as people describe it. It ended up to be a disaster but I thought the needed to trade Wood ASAP. The scouting community seemed to love HO. He just ended up being terrible at everything including life.

The trade I like the least is the Mallex deal. I think we got great value but I just really wanted to see what Mallex could do at the top of the order.

[thewupk]

If we don't trade BJ do we have Touki?

Would you rather have Touki or Margot?

[thethe]

Would you rather have Touki or Margot?

Was margot available when we traded Kimbrel?

[thewupk]

Was margot available when we traded Kimbrel?

Did we have to trade Kimbrel then?

[cajunrevenge]

I like this site. As has been pointed out he is just scouting the stat lines but I dont think he is unaware of the actual scouting part. I doubt he would have Gohara that high if he was throwing 89 mph fastballs. If he did include that part he would just be regurigitating what he read from someone else. I wish he had gone to 20. This site is going on...... the list.

[thethe]

Did we have to trade Kimbrel then?

So you would have been comfortable holding onto a close in a meaningless year with risk of injury?

[TheBravos]

I don't like to judge deals after the fact so the HO trade isn't as bad as people describe it. It ended up to be a disaster but I thought the needed to trade Wood ASAP. The scouting community seemed to love HO. He just ended up being terrible at everything including life.

The trade I like the least is the Mallex deal. I think we got great value but I just really wanted to see what Mallex could do at the top of the order.

Think about this. We have Inciarte, and Albies almost here. Do you really want three quick guys with no pop in the same line-up. Wasn't a given he would hit for average either. I think the original plan was to trade Inciarte, but he played so well...they just couldn't. That was the writing on the wall for him. I thought it was a weird trade at first, but not sure they could have gotten much more...only time will tell.

Not me on HO.

My jaw was on the ground when I found out we had given our #1 prospect (I didn't care for him but he was highly rated and could have brought a nice return), and Wood (young controllable pitcher who would have brought a nice return) and others for a 30 + year old HO (an absolutely unproven player at that). I had a pit in my stomach from the first time I heard it. What team fights to sign a guy to a big deal only to turn around a trade him that fast unless they don't like what they see?

His domestic violence charge actually helped us, because they would have kept his sorry butt for a long time because of what they gave up.

[TheBravos]

So you would have been comfortable holding onto a close in a meaningless year with risk of injury?

I LOVED Kimbrel, but it "did" make sense to trade him. I just hated the deal.

[thewupk]

So you would have been comfortable holding onto a close in a meaningless year with risk of injury?

Better than using his value to clear Melvin off the books.

[bravesfanMatt]

I am still very high on wisler and touki. I like our kimbrell trade. Margot is nice get. I would need to look back at the other three guys from the soxs. I am not convinced however that we wouldn't have found 10 million somewhere if BJ was still around and that trade presented itself. But still not upset with the trades I still think Wisler will be a #3 by next year.

[CJ9]

I'm certainly not as high on this rebuild as a lot of people. Coppy should get more heat for the Kimbrel trade than he does though. I still can't believe we used him to unload BJ's salary when we weren't even planning on competing for a handful of years after that. What was the hurry to unload that salary? That's inexcusable to me.

I also do wish the focus was more on position players. We still have serious questions about the next few years at third, catcher and probably even both corner outfield spots. That shouldn't be the case when we've traded so many valuable pieces.

[smootness]

Right, and if they convert those assets into players that produce MLB value, they will have succeeded.

However, as of now, nothing other than the gift from the DBacks has produced anything. The stated goal was to compete by 2017, and the trades made to achieve that goal have largely failed.

Additionally, none of the non-DBacks prospects acquired have increased in value other than perhaps Fried. The list of prospects recently acquired via trade whose value has substantially deteriorated is extensive. I won't bother listing them all, but Newcomb, Jenkins, Blair, Touki, etc, etc, have all lost a lot of the value they held before being acquired by the Braves. Notice a trend? They are all pitchers, which is what the Braves have decided to focus on.

So no, I would not call this rebuild a resounding success, nor would I say Coppy is doing a wonderful job. His piloting of this rebuild is mediocre, at best. I'm pretty sure any other GM could have done just as well, or better, given the same set of circumstances.

No one could argue our trades were all made with the goal of competing in 2017. The Upton deal clearly wasn't.

And Touki's value has absolutely not decreased since that trade.

[smootness]

I'm certainly not as high on this rebuild as a lot of people. Coppy should get more heat for the Kimbrel trade than he does though. I still can't believe we used him to unload BJ's salary when we weren't even planning on competing for a handful of years after that. What was the hurry to unload that salary? That's inexcusable to me.

I also do wish the focus was more on position players. We still have serious questions about the next few years at third, catcher and probably even both corner outfield spots. That shouldn't be the case when we've traded so many valuable pieces.

How many times does it have to be said that the money saved in that deal was used to acquire other talent?

[thewupk]

How many times does it have to be said that the money saved in that deal was used to acquire other talent?

It was used to pay for Markakis. We owed like 45 million left on Melvin's deal and had signed Nick for 44 million. People can spin it all they want but those two are essentially a wash as far as money goes.

[Enscheff]

Why are hitters more valuable than pitchers?

We have referenced the analysis several times that shows position prospects produce more MLB value than equally ranked pitching prospects.

[Tapate50]

Really enjoyed this write up. Good site

[thethe]

I'm certainly not as high on this rebuild as a lot of people. Coppy should get more heat for the Kimbrel trade than he does though. I still can't believe we used him to unload BJ's salary when we weren't even planning on competing for a handful of years after that. What was the hurry to unload that salary? That's inexcusable to me.

I also do wish the focus was more on position players. We still have serious questions about the next few years at third, catcher and probably even both corner outfield spots. That shouldn't be the case when we've traded so many valuable pieces.

What we're the valueable commodities that we had again?

[thethe]

It was used to pay for Markakis. We owed like 45 million left on Melvin's deal and had signed Nick for 44 million. People can spin it all they want but those two are essentially a wash as far as money goes.

The money traded from the Heyward/Upton deals allowed us to invest money in Markakis.

[thethe]

We have referenced the analysis several times that shows position prospects produce more MLB value than equally ranked pitching prospects.

All I'm seeing is pitchers getting traded for unbelievable amounts of players. Eaton who had incredible value was traded for two pitchers, one of which has seen his value plummet in a year.

[thewupk]

The money traded from the Heyward/Upton deals allowed us to invest money in Markakis.

:facepalm:

People say that the money saved from Melvin allowed us to get Touki and other players. We simply could have not signed Markakis and used the said money to acquire those players. And still get better players by not attaching Melvin to Kimbrel. It's not a hard concept to follow. It was a poor trade in shedding payroll when we had no need to do so since we weren't competing for a few years.

[thethe]

:facepalm:

People say that the money saved from Melvin allowed us to get Touki and other players. We simply could have not signed Markakis and used the said money to acquire those players. And still get better players by not attaching Melvin to Kimbrel. It's not a hard concept to follow. It was a poor trade in shedding payroll when we had no need to do so since we weren't competing for a few years.

There was no way they were just going to tear it down to that level after all those trades. This isnt video game baseball. Fan sentiment is an important factor in any strategy. Especially a fan base as fickle as Atlantas.

[TheBravos]

:facepalm:

People say that the money saved from Melvin allowed us to get Touki and other players. We simply could have not signed Markakis and used the said money to acquire those players. And still get better players by not attaching Melvin to Kimbrel. It's not a hard concept to follow. It was a poor trade in shedding payroll when we had no need to do so since we weren't competing for a few years.

Yep...people talk about what suckers the Dbacks were, but we essentially did the same thing in the Kimbrel trade, except we traded the best closer in the game (at the time), instead of a prospect to shed cash.

[thewupk]

There was no way they were just going to tear it down to that level after all those trades. This isnt video game baseball. Fan sentiment is an important factor in any strategy. Especially a fan base as fickle as Atlantas.

So Markakis was to appease fan sentiment? He is a meh player that they paid market value for at 1 year more than they should have. He absolutely does nothing to inspire the fan base. That offseason there were promises to contend in 2017 to open the new ballpark. The moves that were made indicated that was the original plan and then it shortly changed gears afterwards. Pretty much everything after the HO trade.

Some have worked and some have not. But it was a dumb decision to attach Melvin to Kimbrel.

[TheBravos]

There was no way they were just going to tear it down to that level after all those trades. This isnt video game baseball. Fan sentiment is an important factor in any strategy. Especially a fan base as fickle as Atlantas.

If you're not first you're last 😂

[TheBravos]

We have referenced the analysis several times that shows position prospects produce more MLB value than equally ranked pitching prospects.

That is correct, because pitching prospects fail at a higher rate. BUT established MLB pitchers are a different animal. A #1 or #2 starter under team control will bring manna from heaven.

IF and that's a big if, the Braves hit on some of these leftys.... look out.

You are correct that building with pitching brings much higher risk, but is also higher reward. We could also fail miserably. As long as we're somewhere in between, the rebuild should be a success.

[bravesfanMatt]

If you could pick one player to start your team. Who would it be. Kershaw or trout. Money would be same.

[thewupk]

If you could pick one player to start your team. Who would it be. Kershaw or trout. Money would be same.

Besides the obvious of Trout being younger and better it's going to the hitter in these scenarios because you expect pitchers to get hurt at some point.

[Preacher]

It all depends on how much credit you give Coppy for Stewart making a terrible deal. Given all his other moves, I think Coppy was just lucky to be the beneficiary of Stewart making a bad deal. Right place, right time.

If you blow up a team, fleece the dumbest GM in the game for Swanson and Inciarte, and then pick at the top of the draft, you better have a Top 5 system in the game. I think any competent GM would have done similarly well.

A good GM would have acquired assets that have increased in value since their acquisition. A good GM would have realized rebuilding teams don't need to free up money for non-competitive years by attaching BJ to Kimbrel. A good GM would understand position players are more valuable than pitching prospects, and would build the sys

Its ridiculous to just throw out Coppy's deal as 'luck' when every other team in baseball could have traded with Stewart and fleeced him, Coppy was the one to do it. If you're going to throw out his best moments, then you might as well throw out his worst as well.

Bottom line, Coppy parlayed Heyward into Shelby, then had the intelligence to deal Shelby at the perfect time and found a team that wanted to go for it all and was willing to pay a big price for a pitcher.

You also have to give credit to Coppy and the entire scouting department for planning this international blitz years in advance and striking deals with Maitan +++++.

Has Coppy been perfect? No, but he's done a great job rebuilding this system and not all of it is because he traded away the veterans.

[thethe]

That is correct, because pitching prospects fail at a higher rate. BUT established MLB pitchers are a different animal. A #1 or #2 starter under team control will bring manna from heaven.

IF and that's a big if, the Braves hit on some of these leftys.... look out.

You are correct that building with pitching brings much higher risk, but is also higher reward. We could also fail miserably. As long as we're somewhere in between, the rebuild should be a success.

THe fact that pitchers bust at such a high rate makes it even more logical to stack the deck with pitchers like the Braves have. We are not the Cubs who can afford to pay a TOR on the FA market.

[thethe]

Besides the obvious of Trout being younger and better it's going to the hitter in these scenarios because you expect pitchers to get hurt at some point.

If my goal is to win a world series and I was comfortable with my team making the postseason then its Kershaw.

Kershaw faces about 700-800 batters per year assuming 200+ innings. How many PA's does Trout get a year?

[thewupk]

If my goal is to win a world series and I was comfortable with my team making the postseason then its Kershaw.

Kershaw faces about 700-800 batters per year assuming 200+ innings. How many PA's does Trout get a year?

The same Kershaw who is 4-7 with a 4.55 ERA in the playoffs?

I really hope you aren't trying to say a pitcher is more valuable than an everyday player of the same talent level? This is not the case. It's never been the case.

[thethe]

The same Kershaw who is 4-7 with a 4.55 ERA in the playoffs?

I really hope you aren't trying to say a pitcher is more valuable than an everyday player of the same talent level? This is not the case. It's never been the case.

Why wouldn't a PA for trout count the same as a Batter faced for Kershaw?

[CJ9]

Why wouldn't a PA for trout count the same as a Batter faced for Kershaw?

For starters, Kershaw's batters faced impact about 30 games and Trout's PAs impact 150+.

[thethe]

For starters, Kershaw's batters faced impact about 30 games and Trout's PAs impact 150+.

But trout ABs have significantly less impact on a game than Kershaw does on his games.

[bravesfanMatt]

The same Kershaw who is 4-7 with a 4.55 ERA in the playoffs?

I really hope you aren't trying to say a pitcher is more valuable than an everyday player of the same talent level? This is not the case. It's never been the case.

Another comment that is very not you. Is thethe getting to you. Seriously. If you were in a game 7 and had to pick one pitcher in all of baseball you would NOT pick Kershaw? Really? Now I agree that a hitter impacts the regular season more than pitchers. Just more games. However, in a playoff series a pitcher will have more impact if we are talking equal talent.

Having Kershaw going 3 games in a 7 game series is more valuabl than trouts 30 PA in a 7 game series. I mean the other team could effectively elimInate his impact.

[thethe]

Another comment that is very not you. Is thethe getting to you. Seriously. If you were in a game 7 and had to pick one pitcher in all of baseball you would NOT pick Kershaw? Really? Now I agree that a hitter impacts the regular season more than pitchers. Just more games. However, in a playoff series a pitcher will have more impact if we are talking equal talent.

Having Kershaw going 3 games in a 7 game series is more valuabl than trouts 30 PA in a 7 game series. I mean the other team could effectively elimInate his impact.

Assuming even just 2 games Kershaw would face 50 batters conservatively. Trout at most would have 35 PA.

The old adage that hitters are more valuable than pitchers is not accurate.

[thewupk]

Another comment that is very not you. Is thethe getting to you. Seriously. If you were in a game 7 and had to pick one pitcher in all of baseball you would NOT pick Kershaw? Really? Now I agree that a hitter impacts the regular season more than pitchers. Just more games. However, in a playoff series a pitcher will have more impact if we are talking equal talent.

Having Kershaw going 3 games in a 7 game series is more valuabl than trouts 30 PA in a 7 game series. I mean the other team could effectively elimInate his impact.

Is it though? Maybe Kershaw can't handle the playoffs? If I want a pitcher in the playoffs right now it's Madison Bumgardener. Nothing is a guarantee in the playoffs due to the small sample size of it. If I'm starting a team it's always going to be the best position player.

[thethe]

Is it though? Maybe Kershaw can't handle the playoffs? If I want a pitcher in the playoffs right now it's Madison Bumgardener. Nothing is a guarantee in the playoffs due to the small sample size of it. If I'm starting a team it's always going to be the best position player.

Wow....progress!

Actually admitting that there might be more to baseball than just what's on a statsheet! I'm happy for you.

[thewupk]

Wow....progress!

Actually admitting that there might be more to baseball than just what's on a statsheet! I'm happy for you.

When have I never not admitted to that? Also the goal is to build teams to reach the playoffs not necessarily win in them. Every time a team wins that's considered the way to win in the playoffs. There is no magic formula. Dodgers have arguably who could be the best pitcher ever and haven't made it to the WS yet. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be my #1 pitcher in a draft.

[thethe]

When have I never not admitted to that? Also the goal is to build teams to reach the playoffs not necessarily win in them. Every time a team wins that's considered the way to win in the playoffs. There is no magic formula. Dodgers have arguably who could be the best pitcher ever and haven't made it to the WS yet. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be my #1 pitcher in a draft.

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

[bravesfanMatt]

Is it though? Maybe Kershaw can't handle the playoffs? If I want a pitcher in the playoffs right now it's Madison Bumgardener. Nothing is a guarantee in the playoffs due to the small sample size of it. If I'm starting a team it's always going to be the best position player.

Good call on Madison. Yeah I agree Kershaw hasn't been great in the playoffs although he was better this last time around but still not perfect. I also agree that I would choose a heater as well because like you said they are safer and have more impact in the regular season. What about 2 elite pitchers versus two elite hitters or three elite pitchers versus 3 Elite hitters

[bravesfanMatt]

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

A hitter will have more impact on the regular season there's no way you can argue otherwise. They just get the impact more games. But in the playoffs yes a picture can have a lot more impact because his percentage of games impacted is gonna be much higher than in the regular season.

[smootness]

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

Kershaw's WAR range since he hit his stride: 5.5-7.8

Trout's oWAR range: 8.6-10.0

The top pitchers can't quite get to where the top hitters can in value. Why? I haven't read into why that is from a statistical perspective. Perhaps it's simply because there's a bigger gap between a replacement-level hitter and the elite than there is between a replacement-level pitcher and the elite?

To use extremely crude calculations, let's say replacement-level ERA is 5. Let's say Kershaw throws 230 IP and allows an ERA of 1.6. Even with those sick numbers, he's saving his team about 87 runs over a replacement-level pitcher. Trout's runs created has been in the 135-155 range basically. How many runs does a replacement-level hitter create? I don't know, but if the gap between Trout's runs created and replacement-level is bigger than the gap between Kershaw's runs saved and replacement-level, then that's probably your answer.

[thewupk]

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

What kind of response do you need? Position players are judged on more than when they just stand in the batters box. Using plate appearances vs batters faced is silly.

[smootness]

What kind of response do you need? Position players are judged on more than when they just stand in the batters box. Using plate appearances vs batters faced is silly.

This is true, too. Trout's oWAR includes his base running as well. So in addition to the adage that position players impact more games, position players just have more ways to impact a game than a pitcher does.

[thethe]

What kind of response do you need? Position players are judged on more than when they just stand in the batters box. Using plate appearances vs batters faced is silly.

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

[cajunrevenge]

Another comment that is very not you. Is thethe getting to you. Seriously. If you were in a game 7 and had to pick one pitcher in all of baseball you would NOT pick Kershaw? Really? Now I agree that a hitter impacts the regular season more than pitchers. Just more games. However, in a playoff series a pitcher will have more impact if we are talking equal talent.

Having Kershaw going 3 games in a 7 game series is more valuabl than trouts 30 PA in a 7 game series. I mean the other team could effectively elimInate his impact.

If the game 7 was in July, sure. If its in October or Novemeber I want Bumgarner. Smoltz might have been the 3rd best starter on the Braves but I would pick him for game 7 over anyone ever.

[Southcack77]

I mean he does have a valid point. Take away the Shelby heist (which we all agree was a unrealistic lucky return),and the rebuild is in a much different place. A good GM "should" be able to build a farm by trading most of his assets(See SD, And W Sox for examples). Coppy has done that and I like many of his moves. I give him a solid B, the with chance to be even an A+ depending on how our pitching prospects turn out.

They did change strategy mid way through this rebuild. These were the things I have not agreed with.
1. We had no reason to clear BJ's contract that quick. Weren't going to be competitive and could have gotten a huge return for Kimbrel.
2. HO trade was the biggest "what the??" Of the rebuild. Gave away assets and got nothing in return.
3. Should have done way better on the Simmons trade.
If these trades were handled better, we would have the best farm hands down. We "theoretically" could have another four to five high end prospects.

All in all he has done well though, and the Shelby trade basically cancels out the harm of the HO trade...which still to this day baffles my mind.


Look, it's not the hardest thing in the world to trade off assets for prospects so I'm not really touting the organization as geniuses for having a top 3 farm system, but they do have a top 3 farm system and its based on a lot more than deals done with Dave Stewart.

I feel like their strategy has been relatively consistent. I think maybe the degree to which they were serious about being respectable may have changed last year. They were not particularly serious about it the first two seasons as they sold off a respectable team and the pieces of a terrible team in the first two seasons. Acquiring Kemp to me was the biggest departure from not really caring about being respectable. That was a big investment in a .500 player. Still not really sure why they did that management got nervous.

[smootness]

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

Again, it's about the gap in players. Why would facing more batters than a hitter has PAs necessarily make pitchers more valuable?

And sure, you can walk an elite hitter. But that doesn't really negate the value of that hitter.

[smootness]

Look, it's not the hardest thing in the world to trade off assets for prospects so I'm not really touting the organization as geniuses for having a top 3 farm system, but they do have a top 3 farm system and its based on a lot more than deals done with Dave Stewart.

I feel like their strategy has been relatively consistent. I think maybe the degree to which they were serious about being respectable may have changed last year. They were not particularly serious about it the first two seasons as they sold off a respectable team and the pieces of a terrible team in the first two seasons. Acquiring Kemp to me was the biggest departure from not really caring about being respectable. That was a big investment in a .500 player. Still not really sure why they did that management got nervous.

Does anybody not have the Braves as the clear #1 system?

[Southcack77]

If my goal is to win a world series and I was comfortable with my team making the postseason then its Kershaw.

Kershaw faces about 700-800 batters per year assuming 200+ innings. How many PA's does Trout get a year?


If the World Series were about to start and you offered me Kershaw or Trout, I'd probably take Kershaw.

If the season were about to start, I'd probably take Trout.

[thewupk]

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

[Preacher]

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

Certainly doesn't nullify his effectiveness, but obviously it can limit it - the point is if there's one great hitter in a lineup you can work around that batter. You cannot do the same against a great pitcher.

[bravesfanMatt]

If the World Series were about to start and you offered me Kershaw or Trout, I'd probably take Kershaw.

If the season were about to start, I'd probably take Trout.

That was what I was saying. Over the course of 162 games, impact bats will have more value. playoffs, the games are spread out more and a pitcher can impact more games.

But as you expand the model, I would probably take 3 impact pitchers over 3 impact bats even in the regular season.

[Preacher]

That was what I was saying. Over the course of 162 games, impact bats will have more value. playoffs, the games are spread out more and a pitcher can impact more games.

But as you expand the model, I would probably take 3 impact pitchers over 3 impact bats even in the regular season.

I would take the bats in the regular season if for no other reason than pitchers get hurt so often.

Agree with you on the post-season logic though, two great pitchers can win you a playoff series.

[mqt]

How do you account for the great starting pitchers facing more batters than great hitters get PA.

Also, you can easily just walk trout to help nullify his effectiveness in a game

If you walk Trout all the time, you essentially double his team's chances of scoring a run in that inning. A player like Trout will also help you by playing defense.

[thewupk]

Certainly doesn't nullify his effectiveness, but obviously it can limit it - the point is if there's one great hitter in a lineup you can work around that batter. You cannot do the same against a great pitcher.

That is true. In a small sample the pitcher has the advantage in these scenarios. But with that being said since it is such a small sample as the talent you are facing (on both sides) is really hard to judge who is better. Anything can happen. As was mentioned above. Maddux is the best pitcher of my generation but I'm taking Smoltz in the playoffs.

[thethe]

Again, it's about the gap in players. Why would facing more batters than a hitter has PAs necessarily make pitchers more valuable?

And sure, you can walk an elite hitter. But that doesn't really negate the value of that hitter.

In terms of run production for the hitter versus run prevention of the pitcher it matters. Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors. Now defense and base running needs to be included in the overall assessment.

Walking trout absolutely limits his effectiveness in key spots.

[thethe]

So a player being on base every time would nullify his effectiveness? That's silly.

Whose saying everytime? How about key spots when runners are on base?

[smootness]

In terms of run production for the hitter versus run prevention of the pitcher it matters. Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors. Now defense and base running needs to be included in the overall assessment.

Walking trout absolutely limits his effectiveness in key spots.

Not necessarily. Trout still gets out nearly 60% of the time he steps to the plate. You may be removing the chance of him getting an XBH, but you are also removing that chance you get him out. Walks help score runs.

With regard to run production vs. prevention, it matters, yes. But you absolutely can not say 'Kershaw has more of an impact when considering the two factors'. That is an opinion you're stating as a fact. Pretty much any measure you will find says Trout's bat has more value than Kershaw's arm.

[Enscheff]

Any response to the fact that Kershaw faces more batters in a season than Trout has ABs? The defense certainly closes the gap to maybe even trout having more value but let's not act like this gap is large is a gap at all.

A team comes to the plate 6000-6300 times per regular season. A single batter like Trout can account for 10% of those PAs.

A team pitches ~1450 innings per regular season. A single pitcher like Kershaw pitches about 14% of those innings.

So if Kershaw pitches a higher percentage of his team's innings than Trout does his team's PAs, how can Trout be so much more valuable?

The first issue is that positions players play the field and run the bases. They add value in ways pitchers simply can't. That is the value that closes that 10% to 14% gap. It also tends to make hitters somewhat more valuable overall. Every in play out splits the credit between the pitcher and defense, and every defender is also a hitter.

The second issue is that Trout is, quite simply, one of the best players in history. He is better than Kershaw. If you exclude Trout from the conversation, pitchers put up about as many total 8+ WAR seasons as hitters do.

Going off topic a bit....

Now looking to the postseason, a team playing a 7 game series will have ~266 PAs while pitching ~63 innings. In that series, Trout can still only take ~10% of the PAs, but suddenly Kershaw can pitch 30%+ of the innings. So in the postseason, one single elite pitcher is closer to 2x more valuable than an elite position player. The limiting factor, obviously, is there is only room for a single elite pitcher to pitch in 3 games (1, 4, 7), so multiple elite pitchers have diminishing returns in a 7 game series. Your second best pitcher is only going to pitch in 2 games, which will limit his contributions to ~20%.

Take the example even more extreme, and imagine a world where MLB played once a week like the NFL. In that case, Kershaw would pitch nearly all the innings for his team, and elite pitchers would be 7-8x more valuable than elite position players. They would be as valuable (at least) to their teams and QBs are to NFL teams.

[thewupk]

Whose saying everytime? How about key spots when runners are on base?

Walking players ultimately leads to more runs unless it's an extremely poor hitter behind him. Which would not be the case in this situation.

[thethe]

A team comes to the plate 6000-6300 times per regular season. A single batter like Trout can account for 10% of those PAs.

A team pitches ~1450 innings per regular season. A single pitcher like Kershaw pitches about 14% of those innings.

So if Kershaw pitches a higher percentage of his team's innings than Trout does his team's PAs, how can Trout be so much more valuable?

The first issue is that positions players play the field and run the bases. They add value in ways pitchers simply can't. That is the value that closes that 10% to 14% gap. It also tends to make hitters somewhat more valuable overall. Every in play out splits the credit between the pitcher and defense, and every defender is also a hitter.

The second issue is that Trout is, quite simply, one of the best players in history. He is better than Kershaw. If you exclude Trout from the conversation, pitchers put up about as many total 8+ WAR seasons as hitters do.

Going off topic a bit....

Now looking to the postseason, a team playing a 7 game series will have ~266 PAs while pitching ~63 innings. In that series, Trout can still only take ~10% of the PAs, but suddenly Kershaw can pitch 30%+ of the innings. So in the postseason, one single elite pitcher is closer to 2x more valuable than an elite position player. The limiting factor, obviously, is there is only room for a single elite pitcher to pitch in 3 games (1, 4, 7), so multiple elite pitchers have diminishing returns in a 7 game series. Your second best pitcher is only going to pitch in 2 games, which will limit his contributions to ~20%.

Take the example even more extreme, and imagine a world where MLB played once a week like the NFL. In that case, Kershaw would pitch nearly all the innings for his team, and elite pitchers would be 7-8x more valuable than elite position players.

Excellent analysis. I agree overall and would lean towards making hitters slightly more valuable but it's not a no brained for the regular season. The postseason is a completely different animal.

[thethe]

Walking players ultimately leads to more runs unless it's an extremely poor hitter behind him. Which would not be the case in this situation.

I'd much rather pitch to anyone else when runners are on base.

[bravesfanMatt]

you can 'pitch' around Trout without intentionally walking him. That way you decrease the likelihood of him getting a hit but don't completely eliminate the likelihood of him getting out. This would probably reduce his effectiveness the most.

[Enscheff]

you can 'pitch' around Trout without intentionally walking him. That way you decrease the likelihood of him getting a hit but don't completely eliminate the likelihood of him getting out. This would probably reduce his effectiveness the most.

The best way to limit Trout's impact is to realize that some team is going to be paying him $50M per season after 2020 and likely won't be able to afford a good enough cast of characters around him to make the team good enough to beat you. It's the exact problem the Angels will be facing when he makes $35M starting in 2018. In fact, they are already facing that problem now with Pujols/Trout combo taking so much of their payroll.

If I were the Angels, I would face that financial reality head on, and try to trade Trout for the entire Yankees Top 5 (or more). By the time they are ready to compete again, Pujols will be off the books and they can be free of the insanity that is paying Pujols/Trout $65M per season.

[sturg33]

I would say Coppy has been the beneficiary of some luck, high draft picks, and good assets to trade. I'd give him a C+.

When you trade Heyward, Upton, Simmons, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, Peraza - all of whom's value was good at the time of the deal - you better stock up the system quickly.

I disagree with much of the strategy - using those assets on acquiring high risk pitchers.

I disagree with the Markakis signing - which basically just replaced the dead money of BJ

Also - if you look, 4 of our top 6 prospects were due to Wren (Albies and Acuna) or High draft/international signing (Anderson and Matian).

Looking at the trades... there were two beauties:

1. The Heyward deal - which wasn't a beauty at the time but it sure turned into one with the Miller trade

2. The Gattis deal - getting Folty & Ruiz for Gattis was tremendous value

There were some solid deals:

1. The Upton trade gave us some good assets that was worth the gamble

2. The Gohara trade - this one can still bite us but probably worth the gamble

3. The Touki deal was an interesting gamble... Paying $10M for a high risk prospect is an intriguing bet... but I would have much rather maximized value from Kimbrel if that was indeed the either/or scenario



Then - there were some really bad ones.

1. The Simmons trade was extremely questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

2. The Kimbrel trade was questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

3. The Olivera trade was baffling at the time and has resulted in a horrendous move, compounded by us now being forced to pay Kemp for another 3 years big money



To me - the bad would have whalloped the good if not for the Swanson deal - which actually saved this rebuild from being a disaster. He gets a C+ from me due to the international investing.

[smootness]

I would say Coppy has been the beneficiary of some luck, high draft picks, and good assets to trade. I'd give him a C+.

When you trade Heyward, Upton, Simmons, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, Peraza - all of whom's value was good at the time of the deal - you better stock up the system quickly.

I disagree with much of the strategy - using those assets on acquiring high risk pitchers.

I disagree with the Markakis signing - which basically just replaced the dead money of BJ

Also - if you look, 4 of our top 6 prospects were due to Wren (Albies and Acuna) or High draft/international signing (Anderson and Matian).

Looking at the trades... there were two beauties:

1. The Heyward deal - which wasn't a beauty at the time but it sure turned into one with the Miller trade

2. The Gattis deal - getting Folty & Ruiz for Gattis was tremendous value

There were some solid deals:

1. The Upton trade gave us some good assets that was worth the gamble

2. The Gohara trade - this one can still bite us but probably worth the gamble

3. The Touki deal was an interesting gamble... Paying $10M for a high risk prospect is an intriguing bet... but I would have much rather maximized value from Kimbrel if that was indeed the either/or scenario



Then - there were some really bad ones.

1. The Simmons trade was extremely questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

2. The Kimbrel trade was questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

3. The Olivera trade was baffling at the time and has resulted in a horrendous move, compounded by us now being forced to pay Kemp for another 3 years big money



To me - the bad would have whalloped the good if not for the Swanson deal - which actually saved this rebuild from being a disaster. He gets a C+ from me due to the international investing.

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

[sturg33]

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

No - that is not what I said. I said "the bad would have walloped the good if not for the Swanson deal"

How is the Olivera deal a wash? Because of it, we lost productive young assets and instead are paying a 1WAR player $18M a year for 3 years. I think that compounded the badness of the deal

[smootness]

No - that is not what I said. I said "the bad would have walloped the good if not for the Swanson deal"

How is the Olivera deal a wash? Because of it, we lost productive young assets and instead are paying a 1WAR player $18M a year for 3 years. I think that compounded the badness of the deal

Because those young assets aren't productive?

In 22 starts since the trade, Wood has been mediocre. Peraza has been replacement-level.

[sturg33]

Because those young assets aren't productive?

In 22 starts since the trade, Wood has been mediocre. Peraza has been replacement-level.

Mediocre would be fine so we don't have to go out and sign RA Dickey.

[bravesfanMatt]

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

John fatigue. everyone is ready for results. Plus everyone is forgetting the garbage trades that did amount to stuff.

we turn Juan Jamie and Cahill into Uribe who turned into Gant and Whalen who turned into TD +
We still have Paco from the HO deal..
We got Krol as an off shoot to the Kimbrell deal.
We traded Frenchy and some international coin for Dylan Moore

there have a lot of under the radar type moves that I have to give him credit for.

[TheBravos]

You think those bad deals trump the good deals?

The Olivera deal is mostly a wash; it looks quite a bit better now than it did at the time. So you have two bad deals, according to you - one of which resulted in a top-50 pitching prospect and Austin Riley for a RP being paid big money, and the other got us Newcomb, who is still a high-ceiling arm whose future is undetermined. If that is the 'bad' then how on earth would you try to argue it trumps the good done?

The fact is....while the HO trade didn't really hurt us...we could have gotten a good MLB player or probably 3 good prospects. For what we gave up.

We could a have gotten two more good prospects in the Kimbrel deal.

We could have gotten "at least" two good prospects in the Simmons deal.

That's 6-7 good prospects. Imagine 6-7 more Riley or Touki types to our farm!!

So...we still are doing just fine...BUT...we could have something even better if a few trades were handled differently.

[bravesfanMatt]

I would not call the HO trade a wash.. I will always say it was a bad trade.. If we flip Kemp for something or just able to dump his contract, I will say Coppy did a good job covering his mistake. Yes Wood and Jose are mediocre right now.. but they are still in the league and can produce. HO was scum who was a terrible ball player. That deal is what gets people fired..

[bravesfanMatt]

The fact is....while the HO trade didn't really hurt us...we could have gotten a good MLB player or probably 3 good prospects. For what we gave up.

We could a have gotten two more good prospects in the Kimbrel deal.

We could have gotten "at least" two good prospects in the Simmons deal.

That's 6-7 good prospects. Imagine 6-7 more Riley or Touki types to our farm!!

So...we still are doing just fine...BUT...we could have something even better if a few trades were handled differently.

I disagree..

Kimbrell deal was good. We traded our closer prior to the market going ape **** on Relief pitchers. I think we did just fine in the Craig deal

I also don't think we could have gotten much more in the Simmons deal. Simmons is a special player but not the best all around short stop. There are a lot of great SS around the league and a lot that are coming up. The market for SS needs is very thin.

We could have gotten a lot more than HO..

could haves are fun, but that doesn't make them true.

[smootness]

Mediocre would be fine so we don't have to go out and sign RA Dickey.

Dickey is better than Wood right now. My point is not that it was a good deal, just that in hindsight we didn't really lose anything of consequence, so it's not really that bad a deal.

[smootness]

The fact is....while the HO trade didn't really hurt us...we could have gotten a good MLB player or probably 3 good prospects. For what we gave up.

We could a have gotten two more good prospects in the Kimbrel deal.

We could have gotten "at least" two good prospects in the Simmons deal.

That's 6-7 good prospects. Imagine 6-7 more Riley or Touki types to our farm!!

So...we still are doing just fine...BUT...we could have something even better if a few trades were handled differently.

In a perfect scenario where all our evaluations are correct and all of our moves are ideal, sure. I'm not going to say that everything we've done has been perfect. But I would definitely say we've done a good job of turning a major league roster without much value left on their current deals and no minor league system to speak of into an extremely good system and promise at the big league level.

I would say our FO has to get at least a solid B+ to an A. Giving them a C+ is just asinine.

[smootness]

I would not call the HO trade a wash.. I will always say it was a bad trade.. If we flip Kemp for something or just able to dump his contract, I will say Coppy did a good job covering his mistake. Yes Wood and Jose are mediocre right now.. but they are still in the league and can produce. HO was scum who was a terrible ball player. That deal is what gets people fired..

You don't get fired for giving up Alex Wood and Jose Peraza. You just don't. It was a bad deal. It was not a disaster that will hold us back.

[bravesfanMatt]

You don't get fired for giving up Alex Wood and Jose Peraza. You just don't. It was a bad deal. It was not a disaster that will hold us back.

remove the names. a team that gives up a 24 LHP that was ~3.5 ERA career and on season.. plus the teams #1 to 2ish prospect for a 30 year old Cuban with no MLB experience and injury history. yeah, that can get you fired. I didn't say Copi needed to be fired.. but that was Dave Stewart kind of dumb..

[smootness]

remove the names. a team that gives up a 24 LHP that was ~3.5 ERA career and on season.. plus the teams #1 to 2ish prospect for a 30 year old Cuban with no MLB experience and injury history. yeah, that can get you fired. I didn't say Copi needed to be fired.. but that was Dave Stewart kind of dumb..

It absolutely was not Dave Stewart level dumb. That is hyperbole. Peraza was a decent prospect that was #1-2 in our system because our system was trash. And Wood was really good for us, but the injury concerns were an issue. And the value of both has gone down from the time of the trade. I hated the deal at the time it was made because I inflated the value of Wood and Peraza. Looking back, I'm not that concerned with it. Not a good deal, and we were completely wrong on Olivera, but it's not a killer.

[thewupk]

Dickey is better than Wood right now. My point is not that it was a good deal, just that in hindsight we didn't really lose anything of consequence, so it's not really that bad a deal.

Dickey hasn't had a FIP under 4 in 4 years. I would take Wood even if he gives me less innings.

[thewupk]

It absolutely was not Dave Stewart level dumb. That is hyperbole. Peraza was a decent prospect that was #1-2 in our system because our system was trash. And Wood was really good for us, but the injury concerns were an issue. And the value of both has gone down from the time of the trade. I hated the deal at the time it was made because I inflated the value of Wood and Peraza. Looking back, I'm not that concerned with it. Not a good deal, and we were completely wrong on Olivera, but it's not a killer.

Peraza was Baseball America #26 prospect at the time of the trade. Wood wasn't even in arby yet. That has a lot of value. They incorrectly valued HO because he had a super team friendly contract. If he proved to be a 2-3 WAR player then that is a spectacular deal for the Braves. It became real clear really fast that this would not be the case.

[smootness]

Peraza was Baseball America #26 prospect at the time of the trade. Wood wasn't even in arby yet. That has a lot of value. They incorrectly valued HO because he had a super team friendly contract. If he proved to be a 2-3 WAR player then that is a spectacular deal for the Braves. It became real clear really fast that this would not be the case.

The Dodgers turned around and traded Peraza in a package, and the best thing they got back in return was Montas, who was barely in the top 100. It's pretty clear Peraza's value wasn't truly that of a typical top-30 prospect. BA may have had him there, but his value had dipped by the time we dealt him. He was a 2B with limited offense. Shortly after the trade, they ranked him #66. He was a flawed prospect, and his major league results so far have been even worse than his prospect status.

[thethe]

The fact is....while the HO trade didn't really hurt us...we could have gotten a good MLB player or probably 3 good prospects. For what we gave up.

We could a have gotten two more good prospects in the Kimbrel deal.

We could have gotten "at least" two good prospects in the Simmons deal.

That's 6-7 good prospects. Imagine 6-7 more Riley or Touki types to our farm!!

So...we still are doing just fine...BUT...we could have something even better if a few trades were handled differently.

When you say we could have...what is that based off of?

[thewupk]

The Dodgers turned around and traded Peraza in a package, and the best thing they got back in return was Montas, who was barely in the top 100. It's pretty clear Peraza's value wasn't truly that of a typical top-30 prospect. BA may have had him there, but his value had dipped by the time we dealt him. He was a 2B with limited offense. Shortly after the trade, they ranked him #66. He was a flawed prospect, and his major league results so far have been even worse than his prospect status.

I agree that is status fell quickly after the trade. Still Perza and Wood for a complete unknown is very very poor. The Braves gambled and lost. Still had the mindset of trying to compete when they should be rebuilding.

[thethe]

remove the names. a team that gives up a 24 LHP that was ~3.5 ERA career and on season.. plus the teams #1 to 2ish prospect for a 30 year old Cuban with no MLB experience and injury history. yeah, that can get you fired. I didn't say Copi needed to be fired.. but that was Dave Stewart kind of dumb..

Or you could look at it like giving up a pitcher who had decreasing velicity and talks of going to the pen since he was drafted as well as a slap hitting mif that is most likely a utility player for one of the best players from Cuba that scouts projected to be a middle of the order hitter.

[thewupk]

When you say we could have...what is that based off of?


We traded Wood and Perza hoping HO would be a regular with a cheap salary. It was a win now move and not a rebuilding move.

The fact we shouldn't have used Kimbreal to clear Melvins salary. That is not a rebuilding move.

The Simmons deal wasn't as bad but it hasn't turned out good so far. In a perfect world Newcomb progressed and is close to getting a starting job and the SS we got would have played to career levels and could have flipped him in July or got a trade pick for him.

[thethe]

I agree that is status fell quickly after the trade. Still Perza and Wood for a complete unknown is very very poor. The Braves gambled and lost. Still had the mindset of trying to compete when they should be rebuilding.

They had the mindset of getting a valuable asset. Age is irrelevant in that discussion. Braves are not shy about trading non core pieces

[thethe]

We traded Wood and Perza hoping HO would be a regular with a cheap salary. It was a win now move and not a rebuilding move.

The fact we shouldn't have used Kimbreal to clear Melvins salary. That is not a rebuilding move.

The Simmons deal wasn't as bad but it hasn't turned out good so far. In a perfect world Newcomb progressed and is close to getting a starting job and the SS we got would have played to career levels and could have flipped him in July or got a trade pick for him.

But he is presuming something was available aside from what the braves got. Just curious what he may know.

[thewupk]

But he is presuming something was available aside from what the braves got. Just curious what he may know.

I am pretty sure if the Braves move Kimbrel by himself we got a lot more offers than what the Padres get us. I am also sure if we weren't infatuated with HO we could have gotten more for Peraza and Wood.

[thethe]

I am pretty sure if the Braves move Kimbrel by himself we got a lot more offers than what the Padres get us. I am also sure if we weren't infatuated with HO we could have gotten more for Peraza and Wood.

I agree we could have gotten a piece that privideo more value now for wood/peraza but at the time I find it unlikely it would have been someone who was as valuable as HO was within the industry

[thewupk]

They had the mindset of getting a valuable asset. Age is irrelevant in that discussion. Braves are not shy about trading non core pieces

HO was a win in 2017 move. A proper rebuild gets prospects back for Wood.

[thewupk]

I agree we could have gotten a piece that privideo more value now for wood/peraza but at the time I find it unlikely it would have been someone who was as valuable as HO was within the industry

The only thing valuable about HO was his contract. Again the Braves gambled on him being something he clearly wasn't. I would have rather taken that risk on prospects.

[thewupk]

In fact Kemp is an extension of that. With HO being dead money they are essentially adding Kemp for about 10 million a year or whatever it was. That doesn't look that bad if Kemp gets close to being a 2 WAR player with good offensive numbers. Braves have been in the market for cheap offense for awhile.

HO burned them badly. Let's hope Kemp isn't the same.

[Enscheff]

I would say Coppy has been the beneficiary of some luck, high draft picks, and good assets to trade. I'd give him a C+.

When you trade Heyward, Upton, Simmons, Gattis, Kimbrel, Wood, Peraza - all of whom's value was good at the time of the deal - you better stock up the system quickly.

I disagree with much of the strategy - using those assets on acquiring high risk pitchers.

I disagree with the Markakis signing - which basically just replaced the dead money of BJ

Also - if you look, 4 of our top 6 prospects were due to Wren (Albies and Acuna) or High draft/international signing (Anderson and Matian).

Looking at the trades... there were two beauties:

1. The Heyward deal - which wasn't a beauty at the time but it sure turned into one with the Miller trade

2. The Gattis deal - getting Folty & Ruiz for Gattis was tremendous value

There were some solid deals:

1. The Upton trade gave us some good assets that was worth the gamble

2. The Gohara trade - this one can still bite us but probably worth the gamble

3. The Touki deal was an interesting gamble... Paying $10M for a high risk prospect is an intriguing bet... but I would have much rather maximized value from Kimbrel if that was indeed the either/or scenario



Then - there were some really bad ones.

1. The Simmons trade was extremely questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

2. The Kimbrel trade was questionable at the time and has resulted in a bad move

3. The Olivera trade was baffling at the time and has resulted in a horrendous move, compounded by us now being forced to pay Kemp for another 3 years big money



To me - the bad would have whalloped the good if not for the Swanson deal - which actually saved this rebuild from being a disaster. He gets a C+ from me due to the international investing.

I pretty much agree with this 100%. It doesn't take much of a genius to say, "Justin Upton is available", and then accept the best offer. Any average GM could do that, which is the definition of C.

I liken the Swanson/Inciarte deal with the DBacks to a night playing poker with 5 buddies. Without fail, about an hour into the game, one guy gets bored. He wants to leave, so he is going to go all in on the next hand no matter what. One other guy just so happens to have been dealt a pocket pair on the same hand the bored guy decides he is going all in, so he stays in the hand. Suddenly, one guy just doubled his chip count because he was in the right place at the right time.

This literally was a problem in a poker group, so we made a rule that if you wanted to quit you had to just give your chips to the bank.

Miller was Coppy's pocket pair, and he just so happened to be holding it when Stewart was ready to be doing something stupid.

[Enscheff]

I am pretty sure if the Braves move Kimbrel by himself we got a lot more offers than what the Padres get us. I am also sure if we weren't infatuated with HO we could have gotten more for Peraza and Wood.

You don't have to be pretty sure...you are absolutely, without question, correct.

The Braves tried to mix some "win now" in with the rebuild, and it severely lowered the returns for Kimbrel, Simmons, Wood and Peraza.

Couple that with the fact that the Braves traded for a guy to play 3B that very clearly couldn't play 3B, and I don't see how anyone rates the FO as anything better than "mediocre".

[TheBravos]

You don't have to be pretty sure...you are absolutely, without question, correct.

The Braves tried to mix some "win now" in with the rebuild, and it severely lowered the returns for Kimbrel, Simmons, Wood and Peraza.

Couple that with the fact that the Braves traded for a guy to play 3B that very clearly couldn't play 3B, and I don't see how anyone rates the FO as anything better than "mediocre".

Besides the Shelby trade, all the other "big" trades were average to not great to horrid (considering what we gave up). I think where Coppy has done his best work is in the smaller trades and acquisitions.

No matter what...you HAVE to give Coppy props for the Shelby trade. He did the trade...no other GM did. He has my respect for that trade, because he beat everyone else to the punch.

I will also give Coppy some padding because we don't know what Hart was pushing for. Maybe Coppy wanted to do a full rebuild and Hart a partial. Maybe at some point Coppy talked him into it.

Bottom line...they had plans to do a partial rebuild and then switched to a full. It really hurt the process until they changed strategy.

[Managuarantano's Volunteers]

Heyward and Upton and Gattis trades were good too. You guys got spoiled by the Miller trade into underrating big trades.

Also, if Hector Olivera was not a jerk and had been secretly Miguel Cabrera on that contract, it would have been a good trade even with the age factor. I blame that on our scouting more than Coppy.

The only actually bad trade was Olivera and it hasn't even hurt us. Simmons trade was definitely mediocre, but if Newcomb does decent it will be worth it. Kimbrel trade was also mediocre but it all depends on Wisler's development and how much we get from Krol.

Plus, several of these were Hart moves.

[smootness]

I'm sick of having this debate. We had a 79-win MLB team and no minor league system at all 2 years ago. We are in a much better spot for the future right now. I don't care what grade you want to give the FO, I consider that a good job. Let's move on.

And of course it's easy to throw somebody on the market and take the best offer. The tough part is picking the best offer. We got an injured pitcher coming off TJ and a CF who was hardly a real prospect, and we now have Fried and Gohara to show for them. Say what you want, that's not a C job for one year of Upton.

[Southcack77]

We traded Wood and Perza hoping HO would be a regular with a cheap salary. It was a win now move and not a rebuilding move.

The fact we shouldn't have used Kimbreal to clear Melvins salary. That is not a rebuilding move.

The Simmons deal wasn't as bad but it hasn't turned out good so far. In a perfect world Newcomb progressed and is close to getting a starting job and the SS we got would have played to career levels and could have flipped him in July or got a trade pick for him.

It was just one move. If Oliveira had hit baseball instead of women, he'd have been very tradeable himself.

You'll note that they didn't make a lot of other deals along those lines.

I remain convinced they remained fixated on rebuilding low minors primarily while trying to flip assets for low cost assets near the MLB level who might keep the club respectable or be tradeable for assets more in line with the window.

the biggest change to me was picking up Kemp. That was a real change of gears.

[Southcack77]

Also, even some of you numbers guys are severely overrating some of the Braves assets here and there.

If Alex Wood was super valuable, this is the first that its been reported. My guess is that the Braves and the Dodgers may have preferred younger prospects, but they settled on Oliveira. I don't think anyone was breaking down the door.

I have no problem moving Peraza, though I'm not sure why you'd have put him in that deal exactly. Again, I think his prospect rating might have given people a higher sense of his actual value though. He's a now power second baseman who doesn't walk. Everything is contact and speed. I'm sure the Reds are happy enough with him, but I don't think he was going to fetch a big package and Atlanta had a better version behind him.

But the return just didn't pan out.

[cajunrevenge]

I think people way overvalue Olivera's trade value at the time. I dont think any other team was all that interested in trading much of value for a prospect who was owed that much money who couldnt stay healthy at the time. The dodgers didnt have a place for him to play and I thinknwe bidded againsy ourselves. We could have waited another 6 months or a year and his value would have dropped..I can understand trading Wood for him. I think it was obvious Wood was declining. I cam understand trading Peraza for Olivera. I just could not understand trading both for him. I absolutely hate trading players for cash and thats exactly what this was. We could have had Olivera for cash only a year earlier.

[Russ2dollas]

You can't give Coppy too high a grade b/c he wanted to sign Tebow.

HO is a scouting fail IMO. And One that I don't think they every explained. We LOVED him as a FA and bid a lot for us.

I think they thought Wood was going to get injured and wanted to sell high. Wood hasn't been great outside of ATL. Peraza is just a guy IMO. It was a trade almost universally hated by everyone on this board from the get go. Every GM has at least one of those and most have a lot. The next question will be if Coppy doubled down and screwed us on Kemp or if he really did get a middle of the order bat for HO.

BJ with Kimbrel was a bad move. Coppy won't admit it but it was.

Simmons I think was made with the knowledge they were getting Swanson. So i get it. I just never felt like we got enough for Simba.

It's early but it looks like the draft scouting has gone very well.

I'm still mad about missing out on Senzel b/c we won one too many meaningless games.

[striker42]

I agree we could have gotten a piece that privideo more value now for wood/peraza but at the time I find it unlikely it would have been someone who was as valuable as HO was within the industry

I don't know how valuable HO was within the industry at that point. I'm pretty sure the Dodgers had soured on him which is why they made him available so soon after signing him and without ever calling him up. They got a long, close look at him, realized he wasn't good, and were anxious to get rid of him while some team out there still valued him.

I also don't remember many other teams raving about HO. Usually when you manage to nab a really highly thought of player the writers get quotes from scouts around the game praising the pickup. You didn't hear a lot of praise for HO except for that coming from the Braves front office.

The Braves had beer goggles where HO was concerned. They just couldn't see the real player and way overpaid. The draft pick we got could help ease the blow but honestly, we could have had that draft pick plus something else really valuable for Wood/Peraza. HO was a massive mistake.

[thethe]

I don't know how valuable HO was within the industry at that point. I'm pretty sure the Dodgers had soured on him which is why they made him available so soon after signing him and without ever calling him up. They got a long, close look at him, realized he wasn't good, and were anxious to get rid of him while some team out there still valued him.

I also don't remember many other teams raving about HO. Usually when you manage to nab a really highly thought of player the writers get quotes from scouts around the game praising the pickup. You didn't hear a lot of praise for HO except for that coming from the Braves front office.

The Braves had beer goggles where HO was concerned. They just couldn't see the real player and way overpaid. The draft pick we got could help ease the blow but honestly, we could have had that draft pick plus something else really valuable for Wood/Peraza. HO was a massive mistake.

Baseball America listed him as a top prospect going into last season. There is just no way you can day this was just a braves mistake. Ultimately, they paid the biggest price but it wasn't braves vs the world on the evaluation.

[UNCBlue012]

I'll probably be frustrated with the Kimbrel trade for a while. We didn't get horrible value back, but we could have gotten a HAUL had we traded him alone or even added another good player to the deal -- we should have released BJ or just kept him for a fourth outfielder.

[striker42]

Baseball America listed him as a top prospect going into last season. There is just no way you can day this was just a braves mistake. Ultimately, they paid the biggest price but it wasn't braves vs the world on the evaluation.

I'm speculating but I would bet that Baseball America listed him as the top prospect based largely on what they were told by Braves scouts and front office people. They're no doubt plugged into the scouting departments of every team and if the Braves front office was over the moon for Olivera (they were), it's not surprising BA would give that a lot of weight.

Olivera didn't have only the Braves fooled. The Dodgers were drawn in by the old videos of him and that ultra controlled showcase as well. But they got a good look at him in the minors and quickly realized their mistake. I think the Braves jumped into that deal without checking out what Olivera actually looked like at game speed. If your remember, he was hurt when we traded for him so it's not like we could send scouts out when his name started coming up in trade talks.

We moved without sufficient information. It was a mistake. Hart and Coppy have admitted they blew it as far as Olivera was concerned and it's not just the character thing. They thought they were trading for a cornerstone piece and they got a AAA quality player.

[smootness]

I'm speculating but I would bet that Baseball America listed him as the top prospect based largely on what they were told by Braves scouts and front office people. They're no doubt plugged into the scouting departments of every team and if the Braves front office was over the moon for Olivera (they were), it's not surprising BA would give that a lot of weight.

Olivera didn't have only the Braves fooled. The Dodgers were drawn in by the old videos of him and that ultra controlled showcase as well. But they got a good look at him in the minors and quickly realized their mistake. I think the Braves jumped into that deal without checking out what Olivera actually looked like at game speed. If your remember, he was hurt when we traded for him so it's not like we could send scouts out when his name started coming up in trade talks.

We moved without sufficient information. It was a mistake. Hart and Coppy have admitted they blew it as far as Olivera was concerned and it's not just the character thing. They thought they were trading for a cornerstone piece and they got a AAA quality player.

I seriously doubt they didn't check. Remember that he hit well in his brief stint for the Dodgers. The Dodgers likely wanted to trade him because he got hurt again, and the Braves let their beliefs about him and his potential blind them to the injury issue. That was certainly a mistake, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the Braves weren't wrong in their assessments of him. But it's possible the injuries just held him back more than the Braves thought they would.

[thethe]

I'm speculating but I would bet that Baseball America listed him as the top prospect based largely on what they were told by Braves scouts and front office people. They're no doubt plugged into the scouting departments of every team and if the Braves front office was over the moon for Olivera (they were), it's not surprising BA would give that a lot of weight.

Olivera didn't have only the Braves fooled. The Dodgers were drawn in by the old videos of him and that ultra controlled showcase as well. But they got a good look at him in the minors and quickly realized their mistake. I think the Braves jumped into that deal without checking out what Olivera actually looked like at game speed. If your remember, he was hurt when we traded for him so it's not like we could send scouts out when his name started coming up in trade talks.

We moved without sufficient information. It was a mistake. Hart and Coppy have admitted they blew it as far as Olivera was concerned and it's not just the character thing. They thought they were trading for a cornerstone piece and they got a AAA quality player.

It was absolutely a mistake but not just the braves which was the only point I tried to make. Also, with the dodgers in game speed he hit well in the minors.

[striker42]

I seriously doubt they didn't check. Remember that he hit well in his brief stint for the Dodgers. The Dodgers likely wanted to trade him because he got hurt again, and the Braves let their beliefs about him and his potential blind them to the injury issue. That was certainly a mistake, I don't think anyone is trying to argue that the Braves weren't wrong in their assessments of him. But it's possible the injuries just held him back more than the Braves thought they would.

His stint in the Dodger's system lasted 74 PAs and topped out at AAA (where he had just 31 PAs). His stats are more the result of playing against a bunch of young guys and small sample size. When you watch this guy play for any length of time at all you quickly see that he has a slow bat and stone hands.

I can't see a way that the Braves got any kind of a good, realistic look at him and still wanted to trade for him. He's not a good player and that becomes clear very, very quickly.

It was a mistake by the front office but I'm not calling for them to be fired for it. They know they screwed up. It happens. Just have to learn from the mistake and not repeat it.

[smootness]

His stint in the Dodger's system lasted 74 PAs and topped out at AAA (where he had just 31 PAs). His stats are more the result of playing against a bunch of young guys and small sample size. When you watch this guy play for any length of time at all you quickly see that he has a slow bat and stone hands.

I can't see a way that the Braves got any kind of a good, realistic look at him and still wanted to trade for him. He's not a good player and that becomes clear very, very quickly.

It was a mistake by the front office but I'm not calling for them to be fired for it. They know they screwed up. It happens. Just have to learn from the mistake and not repeat it.

You only saw him after the trade, though. That's my point; regardless of who he was playing against, he was still having success. His struggles came after the trade, which is the only time we saw him. So it's possible the injuries messed him up quite a bit and he just wasn't the same player afterward. Plenty of teams wanted him before the injury, and the Dodgers were looking to eat money and dump him only after that.

[striker42]

You only saw him after the trade, though. That's my point; regardless of who he was playing against, he was still having success. His struggles came after the trade, which is the only time we saw him. So it's possible the injuries messed him up quite a bit and he just wasn't the same player afterward. Plenty of teams wanted him before the injury, and the Dodgers were looking to eat money and dump him only after that.

Some teams wanted him after his showcase and based on who he was in Cuba. There weren't teams busting down the Dodgers' door midseason.

It's possible the injuries screwed him up but I seriously, seriously doubt it. It's not like he shattered a leg or tore up a shoulder. He strained a hamstring.

I just find it too much of a stretch to believe that Olivera was a good player who was dominating and impressing and then had his career derailed by a run of the mill hamstring strain. I can't buy into that based on 31 PAs at AAA (I discount his hitting below AAA as there are plenty of hitters out there who are average at AAA, can't hit a lick in the majors, but can dominate at AA and below).

[smootness]

Some teams wanted him after his showcase and based on who he was in Cuba. There weren't teams busting down the Dodgers' door midseason.

It's possible the injuries screwed him up but I seriously, seriously doubt it. It's not like he shattered a leg or tore up a shoulder. He strained a hamstring.

I just find it too much of a stretch to believe that Olivera was a good player who was dominating and impressing and then had his career derailed by a run of the mill hamstring strain. I can't buy into that based on 31 PAs at AAA (I discount his hitting below AAA as there are plenty of hitters out there who are average at AAA, can't hit a lick in the majors, but can dominate at AA and below).

Oh, I don't think he was ever dominating. I do think we allowed our past scouting of him to cloud our vision. But he did hit considerably worse even in the minors after the trade than before. Yes, it was obviously a small sample, but he hit well at each of the levels in a small sample. So we probably knew what he had been, saw he was having success, and reasoned away all of the concerns.

It was a bad deal, no doubt about it. I just hated it even more at the time it was made (even when I assumed Olivera would at least provide some value) than I do now. I valued Wood and Peraza more than I should have.

[Enscheff]

It was evident the moment he stepped foot in camp that he couldn't play 3B. Tne rumors about him changing positions began almost immediately.

So you tell me, how did they so quickly discover he couldn't play 3B if they had been watching him play 3B at all prior to that? Or is it your contention that a single injury alone ruined his ability to play 3B?

I am willing to bet they hadn't seen him play any amount of defense in person for years. If they had, they would have known he couldn't play 3B. The Dodgers knew, so they unloaded to a team that didn't know.

This information gap on prospects is pretty common, and this time it cost the Braves.

[smootness]

It was evident the moment he stepped foot in camp that he couldn't play 3B. Tne rumors about him changing positions began almost immediately.

So you tell me, how did they so quickly discover he couldn't play 3B if they had been watching him play 3B at all prior to that? Or is it your contention that a single injury alone ruined his ability to play 3B?

I am willing to bet they hadn't seen him play any amount of defense in person for years. If they had, they would have known he couldn't play 3B. The Dodgers knew, so they unloaded to a team that didn't know.

This information gap on prospects is pretty common, and this time it cost the Braves.

It's certainly possible they hadn't seen him in person in the 13 games he played 3B for the Dodgers, I'm not saying that. But his inability to play 3B is not what made him a failure. It was his inability to hit, which may or may not have been clearly evident.

Again, it was a bad deal, and I am sure the Braves' vision was clouded to some degree by the prior scouting we'd done on him. After all, the scouting done prior to him signing with the Dodgers was all based on stuff from a couple years prior. So that's most of what they had to go on, and they made a mistake. Luckily, it didn't cost us much in hindsight.

[Southcack77]

Some teams wanted him after his showcase and based on who he was in Cuba. There weren't teams busting down the Dodgers' door midseason.

It's possible the injuries screwed him up but I seriously, seriously doubt it. It's not like he shattered a leg or tore up a shoulder. He strained a hamstring.

I just find it too much of a stretch to believe that Olivera was a good player who was dominating and impressing and then had his career derailed by a run of the mill hamstring strain. I can't buy into that based on 31 PAs at AAA (I discount his hitting below AAA as there are plenty of hitters out there who are average at AAA, can't hit a lick in the majors, but can dominate at AA and below).

Baseball America would not have rated him a top prospect based on word of mouth from the organization that acquired him.

I think Oliveira probably was a pretty well known commodity in Cuba who was coming off a lot of injuries. I also think the fact that he struck it rich might have amplified personality traits that made him less desirable than his talent level.

I got the impression the Braves were as frustrated with his attitude and personality and off the field behavior as much as anything.