John Manuel On XM This Morning

On Minors And Majors with Grant Paulsen -

Mentioned that Rule V Draft day is one of the five busiest days of every year on the site - more hits than June draft. Several guys that throw 100 will be available.

Braves' notes...


1.) Braves updated Top 10 comes out Friday - have a legitimate shot at breaking the Royals' record of 9 Top 100 guys. 12-13 are under consideration as of right now.

2.) Talked with between 6-8 Scouting Directors who asked "why does Alex Jackson even make the Braves' Top 30?" Said he doesn't work, doesn't adjust, isn't a good teammate - the only positive thing on his ledger is that he was the #6 overall pick when he was chosen. They've been hearing that for a year and a half at this point. The red flags about makeup didn't show up until he got paid. Mentioned Denard Span as the only prospect in the last 20 years to become a big league regular after not making a full season roster in his first full year. Jackson didn't even do it in his second.

3.) Braves have as much high-ceiling talent as any other organization. Even with the Jackson concerns, he feels the trade was a reasonable flier for that reason.

Just an incredible job by this front office to turn around the farm as quickly as they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thethe

Just an incredible job by this front office to turn around the farm as quickly as they did.

---

Let's hope they don't go the other way with the farm just as quickly by being impatient

I'm against an overpay as well but one of the defining characteristics of the Braves in the 90's and early 2000's was the ability to continually draft, scout and develop minor league talent. I have confidence that this front office will be actually allow the scouting department to do their job uninterrupted.

We may never have a farm this strong again for the next 10 years but it will be one of the best in the game based on the scouting talent that decided to come back to this organization the day Wren was fired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

Talked with between 6-8 Scouting Directors who asked "why does Alex Jackson even make the Braves' Top 30?" Said he doesn't work, doesn't adjust, isn't a good teammate - the only positive thing on his ledger is that he was the #6 overall pick when he was chosen. They've been hearing that for a year and a half at this point. The red flags about makeup didn't show up until he got paid.

---

Yikes. If this is an accurate portrayal of Jackson, then I think we've made a mistake unless there's a plan in place to give him a major wake-up call.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dak

Yikes. If this is an accurate portrayal of Jackson, then I think we've made a mistake unless there's a plan in place to give him a major wake-up call.

---

Sometimes D-bags like this need a kick in the face and possibly the trade could have done that. If it doesn't work out then it doesn't hurt but if something clicks then the Bravse could have pulled the heist of the century - Well second biggest heist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dak

Yikes. If this is an accurate portrayal of Jackson, then I think we've made a mistake unless there's a plan in place to give him a major wake-up call.

---

The negative reports about Jackson have been well known. This clearly is just a lottery ticket for two guys that didn't fit in our plans. Povse could be solid but again he won't be in our rotation long term over our higher end guys. Chances are Jackson doesn't work out but he has enormous talent. WHen you have our pitching depth in the minors I like taking a long shot like this

But then you are trading pitchers just because you have them. Why not get equal value back. A long shot is not equal value. I agree with most that it probably will not be a big deal. But I would still rather make moves that have potential and not someone with a <5% chance to make it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt

But then you are trading pitchers just because you have them. Why not get equal value back. A long shot is not equal value. I agree with most that it probably will not be a big deal. But I would still rather make moves that have potential and not someone with a <5% chance to make it

---

I'll have to disagree here. I'm definitely not a fan of "trading Pitchers just because you have them", but in this situation I think it was a worthwhile gamble. We needed to clear up 40-Man Roster space as well as the logjam in the higher levels - particularly at Gwinnett. The deal checked both of those boxes. Gant's "OK", but he wasn't even going to crack Gwinnett's rotation with Collmenter, Wisler, Blair, Newcomb, Sims, and possibly Weigel and/or Mader at some point so he'd likely have been in the pen wherever he was. While I'm not a fan of trading for kids with questionable makeup, I've yet to hear anyone question Jackson's upside in the unlikely event someone ever gets through to him.

Trading Gant, Ellis, and Povse not only got you a SP you feel much more comfortable with at the MLB level (even if only for one year) while clearing the way for much more-talented kids to progress if they deserve to at some point, it also added TWO players with much-higher ceilings in Jackson and Lindgren who could play much more important roles in the future if they somehow work out. Given how good we've been at picking up relievers off the scrap heap, Gant, Ellis, and Povse were arguably three of the most "expendable" players in our system.

I've said all along that I don't think a couple trades like this will move the meter at all - just don't fall in love with so many "upside" guys that you eventually kill the depth we have by making too many of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

I'll have to disagree here. I'm definitely not a fan of "trading Pitchers just because you have them", but in this situation I think it was a worthwhile gamble. We needed to clear up 40-Man Roster space as well as the logjam in the higher levels - particularly at Gwinnett. The deal checked both of those boxes. Gant's "OK", but he wasn't even going to crack Gwinnett's rotation with Collmenter, Wisler, Blair, Newcomb, Sims, and possibly Weigel and/or Mader at some point so he'd likely have been in the pen wherever he was. While I'm not a fan of trading for kids with questionable makeup, I've yet to hear anyone question Jackson's upside in the unlikely event someone ever gets through to him.

Trading Gant, Ellis, and Povse not only got you a SP you feel much more comfortable with at the MLB level (even if only for one year) while clearing the way for much more-talented kids to progress if they deserve to at some point, it also added TWO players with much-higher ceilings in Jackson and Lindgren who could play much more important roles in the future if they somehow work out. Given how good we've been at picking up relievers off the scrap heap, Gant, Ellis, and Povse were arguably three of the most "expendable" players in our system.

I've said all along that I don't think a couple trades like this will move the meter at all - just don't fall in love with so many "upside" guys that you eventually kill the depth we have by making too many of them.

---

the roster management thing is a real factor. Braves had too many fifth starter/swing man types in the upper levels to do something with all of them.

I'd absolutely rather have Jaime Garcia, a lefty, in the MLB rotation than any of those guys. And those guys likely didn't have much trade value beyond what was recovered.

Braves traded organization depth for two assets that their current clubs didn't want anymore. I think that's about all the trades were, except that I think Garcia is someone that can be rehabilitated into having significant trade value and prospect is something you can at least dream big on.

I am fine with trading from depth. I just don't like taking assets that haven't matured yet and throwing them at a lottery ticket. Whalen/Ellis/gant/posve is definitely depth we can replace. But trading them too soon could see us wishing we still had that value for deadline trades or next off season. I just don't like Jackson for Povse. I feel we sold him to low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

On Minors And Majors with Grant Paulsen -

Mentioned that Rule V Draft day is one of the five busiest days of every year on the site - more hits than June draft. Several guys that throw 100 will be available.

Braves' notes...


1.) Braves updated Top 10 comes out Friday - have a legitimate shot at breaking the Royals' record of 9 Top 100 guys. 12-13 are under consideration as of right now.

2.) Talked with between 6-8 Scouting Directors who asked "why does Alex Jackson even make the Braves' Top 30?" Said he doesn't work, doesn't adjust, isn't a good teammate - the only positive thing on his ledger is that he was the #6 overall pick when he was chosen. They've been hearing that for a year and a half at this point. The red flags about makeup didn't show up until he got paid. Mentioned Denard Span as the only prospect in the last 20 years to become a big league regular after not making a full season roster in his first full year. Jackson didn't even do it in his second.

3.) Braves have as much high-ceiling talent as any other organization. Even with the Jackson concerns, he feels the trade was a reasonable flier for that reason.

---

Sounds like Tyler Houston.

The Jackson comments were interesting. Don't think it was a huge gamble, and at least they know what they're up against. The acquisition has John Hart's influence all over it, for the response he had on MLB Network, as others have already mentioned. They must figure that he's young enough to turn things around.

As far as I am concerned our farm is better now than the Royals ever was. Their development system is a joke.

Expect Jackson to be moved back to catcher, and if they're smart, they will make Eddie Perez his personal drill instructorf. Either he will get better and grow up, or wash out. Because if a young catcher can't get along with Perez, that means he is as bad a guy as it sounds. He'll be gone and soon forgotten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajunrevenge

As far as I am concerned our farm is better now than the Royals ever was. Their development system is a joke.

---

Back-to-back trips to the World Series notwithstanding, eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

Back-to-back trips to the World Series notwithstanding, eh?

---

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/...pects-for-2011


They didnt even produce one perennial all star. I dont see anyone on that list hitting anything close to what their perceived ceiling was. A lot of useful parts but nothing special. I doubt Odorizzi would be as good if he stayed with the Royals. The Rays have some of the best development systems whereas the Royals development is a dumpster fire. Their best players for their WS teams were Gordon who they already had and the players they got for trading Greinke. They were also very close to selling at the trade deadline the year they got to the first WS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bravesfanMatt

I am fine with trading from depth. I just don't like taking assets that haven't matured yet and throwing them at a lottery ticket. Whalen/Ellis/gant/posve is definitely depth we can replace. But trading them too soon could see us wishing we still had that value for deadline trades or next off season. I just don't like Jackson for Povse. I feel we sold him to low.

---

I'm not so sure Coppy doesn't have one more of these trades to thin out some of this depth for anoter lottery ticket up his sleeve still. Think about it, we still have...

Collmenter, Wisler, Blair, Newcomb, Blair, Perez, Jenkins, Weigel, Mader, Withrow, and Beech as potential AAA or AA SPs, and you also have Casey Kelly and Rob Wooten as spot-starters/swingmen, Then you have Biddle and Fried. On top of that, you've got Winkler, Hursh, Akeel Morris, Marksberry, Cuniff, Feigl, Brian Moran, Janas, Roney, Minter, Dirks, Pfeiffer, Evan Phillips, David Peterson, and several others as pen pieces at those levels.

It wouldn't surprise me to see a couple of those guys packaged to get someone like a Courtney Hawkins/Mason Williams/Jake Cave/Matt Olson/Max Pentecost type.

No idea who this Manuel guy is, but everyone proclaiming the Jackson trade a steal for the Braves should try to wrap their heads around what he said. The PosiBraves will obviously decide that Jackson will be the next Denard Span during their next circle jerk session, but the far most likely outcome is that he washes completely out of baseball before producing even 1 WAR.

Like I said the day the trade went down, it was an odd way for the Braves to spend pitching prospect value. Just because they probably weren't going to pitch for the Braves doesn't mean it was OK to spend that value on something so....odd.

Prospecting is all about taking chances. What Jackson has is upside. We gave up low upside guys who might produce more than Jackson in the majors but it should be production we can easily make up for with any number of other pitchers. You cant win the lottery if you dont play. We traded two tickets with a 50% chance to win 5 bucks for a 1 in 1000 chance to win 500k.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

No idea who this Manuel guy is, but everyone proclaiming the Jackson trade a steal for the Braves should try to wrap their heads around what he said. The PosiBraves will obviously decide that Jackson will be the next Denard Span during their next circle jerk session, but the far most likely outcome is that he washes completely out of baseball before producing even 1 WAR.

Like I said the day the trade went down, it was an odd way for the Braves to spend pitching prospect value. Just because they probably weren't going to pitch for the Braves doesn't mean it was OK to spend that value on something so....odd.

---

I think including Povse in the Alex Jackson trade was a little eyebrow raising since it implies Atlanta was pretty interested in Jackson specifically.

I don't think there was much urgency in moving Povse to make the rosters work. I don't think Povse was that high a price though. He seemed destined to be a throw in in some trade some day regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

No idea who this Manuel guy is, but everyone proclaiming the Jackson trade a steal for the Braves should try to wrap their heads around what he said. The PosiBraves will obviously decide that Jackson will be the next Denard Span during their next circle jerk session, but the far most likely outcome is that he washes completely out of baseball before producing even 1 WAR.

Like I said the day the trade went down, it was an odd way for the Braves to spend pitching prospect value. Just because they probably weren't going to pitch for the Braves doesn't mean it was OK to spend that value on something so....odd.

---

No one ever thought any differently. It's a steal in that we got a guy with big bat potential (even if extremely risky) for spare parts. The actual value may not have been off on either side, but from our standpoint it was a good trade.

It is hard to get big bats. Even if there's a 5% chance he makes it, those odds aren't bad considering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cajunrevenge

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2010/...pects-for-2011


They didnt even produce one perennial all star. I dont see anyone on that list hitting anything close to what their perceived ceiling was. A lot of useful parts but nothing special. I doubt Odorizzi would be as good if he stayed with the Royals. The Rays have some of the best development systems whereas the Royals development is a dumpster fire. Their best players for their WS teams were Gordon who they already had and the players they got for trading Greinke. They were also very close to selling at the trade deadline the year they got to the first WS.

---

Hosmer, Moose, Myers, Duffy, Perez, Odorizzi, and Ventura have all turned into very productive major league regulars. Hosmer, Duffy, and Perez all have at least 10 career WAR. Moose is at 9.7 even with with missing the majority of 2016. Odorizzi and Ventura both have 3 WAR seasons under their belts. Myers is one of the best power hitters in the game. Montgomery and Jeffress have carved out pretty good roles as high leverage relievers.


More than half of the list you provided has made the majors. And about half the list are pretty productive major league regulars, even if there aren't any "superstars" at this time. I'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

No idea who this Manuel guy is, but everyone proclaiming the Jackson trade a steal for the Braves should try to wrap their heads around what he said. The PosiBraves will obviously decide that Jackson will be the next Denard Span during their next circle jerk session, but the far most likely outcome is that he washes completely out of baseball before producing even 1 WAR.

Like I said the day the trade went down, it was an odd way for the Braves to spend pitching prospect value. Just because they probably weren't going to pitch for the Braves doesn't mean it was OK to spend that value on something so....odd.

---

Of course you don't - he doesn't have a calculator attached to his wrist. For all this vast "knowledge" you claim to possess, he'd probably be worth doing a little homework on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smootness

No one ever thought any differently. It's a steal in that we got a guy with big bat potential (even if extremely risky) for spare parts. The actual value may not have been off on either side, but from our standpoint it was a good trade.

It is hard to get big bats. Even if there's a 5% chance he makes it, those odds aren't bad considering.

---

yeah, seattle stole a future 10+ year mlb starting pitcher. i'll reiterate...this could go down as the worst braves trade in memory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chipchildress

yeah, seattle stole a future 10+ year mlb starting pitcher. i'll reiterate...this could go down as the worst braves trade in memory.

---

Good gosh, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

No idea who this Manuel guy is, but everyone proclaiming the Jackson trade a steal for the Braves should try to wrap their heads around what he said. The PosiBraves will obviously decide that Jackson will be the next Denard Span during their next circle jerk session, but the far most likely outcome is that he washes completely out of baseball before producing even 1 WAR.

Like I said the day the trade went down, it was an odd way for the Braves to spend pitching prospect value. Just because they probably weren't going to pitch for the Braves doesn't mean it was OK to spend that value on something so....odd.

---

I'm obviously a posibrave... but I have concerns about Jackson. Still, for what we gave up I think its worth the gamble just on physical talent alone. If we can kick his butt into gear, he can definitely still be a big time prospect. Maybe its not likely, but we traded two pitchers that are not likely to pitch on our team. Even though I like Whalen, it was obvious the Braves didn't see him in the future. I will miss Gant more... but I like the upside of Garcia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chipchildress

yeah, seattle stole a future 10+ year mlb starting pitcher. i'll reiterate...this could go down as the worst braves trade in memory.

---

Uhhhhh..... WUT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zbhargrove

I'm obviously a posibrave... but I have concerns about Jackson. Still, for what we gave up I think its worth the gamble just on physical talent alone. If we can kick his butt into gear, he can definitely still be a big time prospect. Maybe its not likely, but we traded two pitchers that are not likely to pitch on our team. Even though I like Whalen, it was obvious the Braves didn't see him in the future. I will miss Gant more... but I like the upside of Garcia.

---

You're a storm chaser. You have 2 of those super cool storm chasing rigs we all see on TV. You can only drive 1 storm chasing rig, so you drive around in the best one, and leave the lesser one sitting in your garage.

Does the fact that you don't drive the lesser rig mean you should trade it for a broken down rusted out '67 Camaro SS that needs major restoration work? Or should you hang onto that extra storm chasing rig and use it to acquire something you can actually use? Maybe swap it for an RV, or package it with other things to pay off your house? The fact you have an extra makes it expendable, but it does NOT lessen its value.

Folks keep saying things like, "they were blocked anyways", as if that lowers the value of a talent asset. It is possibly the most illogical player valuation argument I've seen. If the BoSox had 2 clones of Moncada, each would still be worth the same, no matter how many of them could play for the BoSox at the same time.

What if the Braves are hanging out at .500 near the trade deadline, and could have used Gant to acquire a BP arm or bench bat to help their cause? Wouldn't that be a better use of the asset than a guy who wasn't even assigned to full season ball 2 years after being drafted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

You're a storm chaser. You have 2 of those super cool storm chasing rigs we all see on TV. You can only drive 1 storm chasing rig, so you drive around in the best one, and leave the lesser one sitting in your garage.

Does the fact that you don't drive the lesser rig mean you should trade it for a broken down rusted out '67 Camaro SS that needs major restoration work? Or should you hang onto that extra storm chasing rig and use it to acquire something you can actually use? Maybe swap it for an RV, or package it with other things to pay off your house? The fact you have an extra makes it expendable, but it does NOT lessen its value.

Folks keep saying things like, "they were blocked anyways", as if that lowers the value of a talent asset. It is possibly the most illogical player valuation argument I've seen. If the BoSox had 2 clones of Moncada, each would still be worth the same, no matter how many of them could play for the BoSox at the same time.

What if the Braves are hanging out at .500 near the trade deadline, and could have used Gant to acquire a BP arm or bench bat to help their cause? Wouldn't that be a better use of the asset than a guy who wasn't even assigned to full season ball 2 years after being drafted?

---

We will see... kinda hard to compare cars to baseball... if he gets moved to catcher again and turns his attitude around, its certainly a quality gamble. Also, there's no reason for a storm chasing rig (except for unnecessary TV drama)... I'd much rather chase in the camero if I can get it working ;)

If Tyler Marlette ends up being the PTBNL, then I will definitely be happy with the deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

You're a storm chaser. You have 2 of those super cool storm chasing rigs we all see on TV. You can only drive 1 storm chasing rig, so you drive around in the best one, and leave the lesser one sitting in your garage.

Does the fact that you don't drive the lesser rig mean you should trade it for a broken down rusted out '67 Camaro SS that needs major restoration work? Or should you hang onto that extra storm chasing rig and use it to acquire something you can actually use? Maybe swap it for an RV, or package it with other things to pay off your house? The fact you have an extra makes it expendable, but it does NOT lessen its value.

Folks keep saying things like, "they were blocked anyways", as if that lowers the value of a talent asset. It is possibly the most illogical player valuation argument I've seen. If the BoSox had 2 clones of Moncada, each would still be worth the same, no matter how many of them could play for the BoSox at the same time.

What if the Braves are hanging out at .500 near the trade deadline, and could have used Gant to acquire a BP arm or bench bat to help their cause? Wouldn't that be a better use of the asset than a guy who wasn't even assigned to full season ball 2 years after being drafted?

---

If you're able to restore that 67 Camaro and it's worth 6 times that storm chasing truck then Yes you make that deal. Part of playing the stock market is taking gambles on a startup every now and then and not just putting your money in to sure things with small payouts. You think small you stay small IMHO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chico

If you're able to restore that 67 Camaro and it's worth 6 times that storm chasing truck then Yes you make that deal. Part of playing the stock market is taking gambles on a startup every now and then and not just putting your money in to sure things with small payouts. You think small you stay small IMHO

---

Yup, which is what happens with a very small percentage of old junk cars. The vast majority sit around and continue to be junk.

I'll stick with following the probabilities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

Yup, which is what happens with a very small percentage of old junk cars. The vast majority sit around and continue to be junk.

I'll stick with following the probabilities.

---

Good analogy, but just like with your investment portfolio, you allocate a limited percentage of your assets towards more risky propositions in the hopes of larger than normal returns.

The dollar you invest as venture capital in a risky yet high end start up has the exact same value as the one you have in Berkshire Hathaway stock and the one earning 2.18% on T-bills. As long as you have a whole lot more of those dollars in the latter two investments it doesn't hurt to chase the super-high margins with the extras sometimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DirkPiggler

Good analogy, but just like with your investment portfolio, you allocate a limited percentage of your assets towards more risky propositions in the hopes of larger than normal returns.

The dollar you invest as venture capital in a risky yet high end start up has the exact same value as the one you have in Berkshire Hathaway stock and the one earning 2.18% on T-bills. As long as you have a whole lot more of those dollars in the latter two investments it doesn't hurt to chase the super-high margins with the extras sometimes.

---

Ideally you would want as many low risk, high reward bets as possible. If you have a high risk, you at least want to see that you get paid out if it hits.

Defining what low risk means here could be interesting. I would go with acquisition costs here rather than the likelihood of the player hitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enscheff

Yup, which is what happens with a very small percentage of old junk cars. The vast majority sit around and continue to be junk.

I'll stick with following the probabilities.

---

Why do you seem to think Povse+Whalen is worth more than Jackson? They aren't. At best, the difference in value is negligible. We didn't sacrifice value because they were extra pieces we didn't need. We used extra pieces we didn't need to get a player with roughly equal value that has more potential and is a better fit for what we want.

As for Gant, how would we use him to acquire a useful BP piece? How many teams are willing to give up a useful BP piece for a less useful BP piece?

Also, how freaking valuable is a storm chasing rig? How many people on planet Earth want one of those pieces of crap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clvclv

Of course you don't - he doesn't have a calculator attached to his wrist. For all this vast "knowledge" you claim to possess, he'd probably be worth doing a little homework on.

---

Who attaches a calculator to their wrist? Doesnt make sense.

With so many experts here, why even see what he'all do on the field? What's with this constant need to be right about someone we've never seen an inning of ball from? Just a prospect gamble that we didn't give up anything substantial for.

What's with this posiBraves crap? There is plenty on this earth to bitch about, how dare someone have the nerve to be optimistic about Braves baseball on a Braves forum? Nobody is claiming Jackson will join Andy Marte in the HOF. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mossy

With so many experts here, why even see what he'all do on the field? What's with this constant need to be right about someone we've never seen an inning of ball from? Just a prospect gamble that we didn't give up anything substantial for.

What's with this posiBraves crap? There is plenty on this earth to bitch about, how dare someone have the nerve to be optimistic about Braves baseball on a Braves forum? Nobody is claiming Jackson will join Andy Marte in the HOF. :)

---

An anti-social malcontent with wi-fi, an empty Ritalin prescription and a few full cans of Red Bull is a dangerous mix.