How do the Braves find bats for 2017 and beyond?

[nsacpi]

The approach I would take would be to build a team that every year projects to be at 80-85 wins on the projected win curve. Sometimes we will get lucky and hit 90-95 wins (and we buy on an opportunistic basis at the deadline in those years) and other years we will be unlucky and end up with 70-75 wins (and of course we sell at the deadline in those years).

The formula for building those teams is to keep Simmons and Freeman as your core and build a solid supporting cast that projects to contribute 2-3 WAR throughout the lineup and starting rotation. You avoid taking chances on long-term contracts that run mostly in a player's declining years.

The playoffs are a crapshoot and I don't think it makes sense to try to plan to have a great team in year X and punt in year Y.

I do think, however, that because of this confluence of talent currently in their teens we will have a chance for something special in the 2018-2020 period when many of them will be reaching the majors and Freeman and Simmons will still be under contract.

[Carp]

It seems to me you need to be realistic about where the best talent lies in your farm system. For us it is with a remarkable group that is currently aged 17-18. In some ways this is painful and inconvenient. Painful because they are so young and will take years to reach the majors. Inconvenient because the front office has stated that it wants to have a strong contending team in place for the opening of the new stadium in 2017.

And yet we have plenty of talent already to be a contending team in 2016/2017 depending on what we bring in. LF and C are the only two positional spots where we don't currently have solutions for (depending on how you view Maybin and Mallex). The rotation needs a pitcher as well, which we will most likely sign. Not to mention, a good amount of money to spend as the stadium opens up.

[nsacpi]

And yet we have plenty of talent already to be a contending team in 2016/2017 depending on what we bring in. LF and C are the only two positional spots where we don't currently have solutions for (depending on how you view Maybin and Mallex). The rotation needs a pitcher as well, which we will most likely sign. Not to mention, a good amount of money to spend as the stadium opens up.

We will have a contending team in 2017. I agree with that. Nothing more nothing less. With a little luck it could do something special. With some bad luck it could have a losing record.

I do think there are quite a few question marks about whether we have solid 2-3 WAR players to complement Freeman and Simmons. At C and LF there are big question marks. Right now neither Maybin nor Jace Peterson are on track to be 2 WAR players this year. Neither is Markakis in spite of having a .344 BABIP. And he won't be getting better by 2017.

In the rotation, only Miller and Teheran will have generated over 2 WAR in a recent season. I'm optimistic about Wisler. Less so about the other young pitchers who have had a go in the rotation. So I would say we have 2 holes in the rotation.

So to me there are question marks at 2 of the starting pitcher spots, at catcher, second, third, left, center and right.

[Horsehide Harry]

I think the risks in this approach is that the market will dictate fairly long and expensive contracts for guys like Davis, Price and Samardzija. Those deals might be fine for their first two or three years, but towards the end they will really handicap the team.

Price will probably get 7 years and $200M. The tail end of that could certainly be an albatross. But, you have to think you would be getting 4-5 years of ACE contribution.

Samardzija will probably get something like 6 years $110M. A bit more (maybe $30M) most likely than what you would pay Miller over the next six years (assuming Miller remains good as he is today and signs an extension) and, oh yeah, about that extension, if you re-sign him, let's say after his 4th year, he likely gets more than Samardzija, probably by a significant amount.

Davis probably gets 5 years $90-100M similar to Freeman but with one year less exposure. I'm certainly not saying Freeman and Davis are equal players since Davis is 4 years older, strikes out more, hits for significantly more power and probably is past or in the middle of his prime while Freeman still conceivable could get better. But, it's a give and take. It's not trade Freeman for Davis. It's trade Freeman for three high end quality prospects at need positions who will be cheap for years AND sign Davis.

Teheran is relatively cheap for the next five years with his cost being $11M in 2019, $12M in 2020 or a total of about $41M over the next five while Samardzija would be about $90M over the same time. But, again, it's not Teheran for Samardzija (or someone like him).

The strategy is using current talent to acquire talent for need areas and replacing the traded talent from the FA market, which, if the Braves continue to be in the bottom ten in baseball, this is the year to spend especially considering the 2017 market is much worse.

My strategy actually frees up some financial flexibility long term since you are bringing in such a big number of players who will be very cheap for their first 3-4 years of their career. AND, because you aren't in a position of having to trade young cheap talent for ML veteran help, you have a big pool from top to bottom of the system where not all will arrive at the same time.

Of course, you likely have the opportunity to trade one or more of the signed FA at some point as needed.

[Horsehide Harry]

The approach I would take would be to build a team that every year projects to be at 80-85 wins on the projected win curve. Sometimes we will get lucky and hit 90-95 wins (and we buy on an opportunistic basis at the deadline in those years) and other years we will be unlucky and end up with 70-75 wins (and of course we sell at the deadline in those years).

The playoffs are a crapshoot and I don't think it makes sense to try to plan to have a great team in year X and punt in year Y.

I don't understand what you are saying here. On the one hand it looks like you are advocating the Billy Beane method but then you almost immediately change that. I am confused.

I think the Braves are a solid mid payroll team that could push easily into high payroll team if Liberty wished. But, under no scenario are the Braves a small market team.

I think if the Braves are willing to make moves when needed and spend money wisely, they can be very competitive year after year, maybe not win WS every year, maybe not win the division every year but certainly be in the conversation. But, all teams need to recognize when to rebuild. The Braves are where they are right now because they tried to band aide the team to competitiveness for too long which worked a little but left each year entering with more questions and less answers.

The team was badly constructed with too many bad contracts and almost no real talent in the minors. If Hart had not done what he did the Braves were staring at a Pirate like run of mediocrity for years.

[chop2chip]

How do we get hitters?

Well we hope Austin Riley becomes something, Braxton Davidson is a young Nick Swisher, Albies an all star short stop, Mallex is Bourn 2.0, etc. and that we don't cut off our nose to spite our face this go around by signing past their prime free agents so we can't afford to keep our young talent.

It makes me sick to my stomach we had to trade Kimbrel in order to unload BJ and we couldn't retain Heyward because the plethora of bad contracts on our team.

There isn't an exact method to building a certain type of team. In the end we just have to get lucky just like everybody else.

[Horsehide Harry]

And yet we have plenty of talent already to be a contending team in 2016/2017 depending on what we bring in. LF and C are the only two positional spots where we don't currently have solutions for (depending on how you view Maybin and Mallex). The rotation needs a pitcher as well, which we will most likely sign. Not to mention, a good amount of money to spend as the stadium opens up.

I disagree with the outlook. I think just because you have a body with a heartbeat at a position doesn't mean that the spot isn't a hole. I think the team still is full of holes outside of the pitching staff. There are no really good ML outfielders. Sure Markakis is OK but he's not the right on filed fit for a young developing team in terms of production. His off field leadership might be valuable but that doesn't make him a good player. Maybin is probably fools gold. Smith works if he can play CF and lead off but is virtually useless under any other circumstances. LF is a disaster. There are no other near term fixes in the minors.

Jace doesn't embarrass at 2B but he's not great. Olivera is an unknown. Catcher is a band aide over a femoral artery, holding right now but could go any minute.

Think about it this way: Position by position, which players would rank in the TOP TEN at their position in baseball right now. I say Freddie at first sneaks in at the bottom half of the top ten and Simmons is probably in the 5 range because his defense is so great. After that its pretty bleak.

The same can be said about current pitching. Miller MIGHT be top ten but probably not. After that the starters are all potential. As is the relief corps.

What the Braves have been good at doing (and I think this was a Wren special) is putting teams out there with playable players at each position but no real stars anywhere. This makes them solidly mediocre most of the time.

[Horsehide Harry]

We will have a contending team in 2017. I agree with that. Nothing more nothing less. With a little luck it could do something special. With some bad luck it could have a losing record.

I do think there are quite a few question marks about whether we have solid 2-3 WAR players to complement Freeman and Simmons. At C and LF there are big question marks. Right now neither Maybin nor Jace Peterson are on track to be 2 WAR players this year. Neither is Markakis in spite of having a .344 BABIP. And he won't be getting better by 2017.

In the rotation, only Miller and Teheran will have generated over 2 WAR in a recent season. I'm optimistic about Wisler. Less so about the other young pitchers who have had a go in the rotation. So I would say we have 2 holes in the rotation.

So to me there are question marks at 2 of the starting pitcher spots, at catcher, second, third, left, center and right.

I think the young pitchers need all the time that they can get to figure it out and/or let the Braves figure out who is a keeper. Wisler seems to have solid 3 stuff and has decent control. Perez is a 5 and probably won't be any better. Folty, Banuelos, Jenkins, Sims, Touissant, Sanchez all need to find some control or they are going to walk themselves out of the league or hurt somebody. Allard, Soroka, others have a Loooong way to go. Who knows what Fried will bring. Will Bird, Whelan, Gant or others become a diamond in the rough?

I think if you get 4-5 keepers out of the current group it would be a win. Because of that, I think a couple a FA pitchers, hopefully very high end, will be brought in this year.

[Horsehide Harry]

How do we get hitters?

Well we hope Austin Riley becomes something, Braxton Davidson is a young Nick Swisher, Albies an all star short stop, Mallex is Bourn 2.0, etc. and that we don't cut off our nose to spite our face this go around by signing past their prime free agents so we can't afford to keep our young talent.

It makes me sick to my stomach we had to trade Kimbrel in order to unload BJ and we couldn't retain Heyward because the plethora of bad contracts on our team.

There isn't an exact method to building a certain type of team. In the end we just have to get lucky just like everybody else.

I think that is taking the easy way out...stay in the box and hope for the best.

[chop2chip]

I think that is taking the easy way out...stay in the box and hope for the best.

My basic underlying point is that you have to develop your hitters first and foremost. Of course you augment those pieces with veterans, but I can't think of many situations where a team was able to build great lineups without either (a) spending Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox money, or (b) developing multiple players at the same time. Since (a) isn't an option we need to focus on part (b).

Of course, there is the Blue Jays route of trading for an assortment of players in their prime. It's asinine that the Blue Jays were able to get Tulo, Donaldson, Bautista, and Encarnacion for essentially nothing. I guess if you want to follow a blueprint that would be the one.

[Horsehide Harry]

My basic underlying point is that you have to develop your hitters first and foremost. Of course you augment those pieces with veterans, but I can't think of many situations where a team was able to build great lineups without either (a) spending Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox money, or (b) developing multiple players at the same time. Since (a) isn't an option we need to focus on part (b).

Of course, there is the Blue Jays route of trading for an assortment of players in their prime. It's asinine that the Blue Jays were able to get Tulo, Donaldson, Bautista, and Encarnacion for essentially nothing. I guess if you want to follow a blueprint that would be the one.

I think I somewhat agree with what you are saying with point b. My point is you make point b much more likely if you increase the pool of players from which to draw. Since the Braves don't have many hitters at the higher levels of the minors, I think they should use current ML talent (talent that CAN be replaced at the FA level) to bring back bats that will play at the positions of need on the team. Of course not all will pan out. But the more you have the better your odds.

The issue with waiting for low minors bats to mature is that the clock is ticking on the pieces at the ML level. Many teams get caught in this quandary where time passes until help arrives and when it does new holes are opened as old are filled because the ML talent goes away in FA or through time.

This happened to teams like KC, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Toronto where they needed the advantage of multiple terrible seasons and the talent acquisition advantages presented there to bring in enough can't miss talent to bring them back to potential relevance.

[KB21]

I just completely disagree with the idea that you get your bats by trading away top notch, young pitchers who have a controllable salary. It's the reason I did not like the Alex Wood trade, and since that trade, we have noticed some struggles with our younger pitchers that we are now relying upon to get wins. You say that you trade them and just replace them with a free agent pitcher. OK. So, you are trading a pitcher who is 24 years of age and has controlled years left on his contract, and you are signing someone in the 29-31 age range for MUCH more money. That increase in age comes with an increased risk of injury and more potential for a decline in effectiveness.

I believe you can get the bats needed without having to give up Teheran or Miller in a deal. This is why you build up a surplus of pitching prospects in the system. Pitching is always a valued commodity, and teams will trade for young pitching all the time.

[nsacpi]

My basic underlying point is that you have to develop your hitters first and foremost. Of course you augment those pieces with veterans, but I can't think of many situations where a team was able to build great lineups without either (a) spending Yankee/Dodger/Red Sox money, or (b) developing multiple players at the same time. Since (a) isn't an option we need to focus on part (b).

Of course, there is the Blue Jays route of trading for an assortment of players in their prime. It's asinine that the Blue Jays were able to get Tulo, Donaldson, Bautista, and Encarnacion for essentially nothing. I guess if you want to follow a blueprint that would be the one.

The Blue Jays blueprint is one worth looking at. The common element of the Donaldson, Tulowitski and Price trades was a willingness to act boldly and opportunistically.

[nsacpi]

This happened to teams like KC, Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Toronto where they needed the advantage of multiple terrible seasons and the talent acquisition advantages presented there to bring in enough can't miss talent to bring them back to potential relevance.

The way things are unfolding for us is we probably will have to wait until 2019-2020 when our best homegrown talent will reach the majors. Our situation differs from the most of the teams you listed (and I would add the Cubs to the list) in a couple ways. First, we have an outstanding young core in Freeman and Simmons to build around. Whether it is a good or bad thing that we are holding on to those two in our rebuilding years, it distinguishes us from the teams that have gone through long rebuilds. Secondly, we apparently plan to try to accelerate the process by boosting payroll to coincide with the opening of the new stadium in 2017. The stadium opening is also leading the from office to take from 2016 and give to 2017 (in the form of the Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade).

It is interesting to note that the Pirates did boost payroll in 2001 when their new ballpark opened. But that turned out to be a false dawn. They managed to lose 100 games that year.

[dak]

The approach I would take would be to build a team that every year projects to be at 80-85 wins on the projected win curve. Sometimes we will get lucky and hit 90-95 wins (and we buy on an opportunistic basis at the deadline in those years) and other years we will be unlucky and end up with 70-75 wins (and of course we sell at the deadline in those years).

The formula for building those teams is to keep Simmons and Freeman as your core and build a solid supporting cast that projects to contribute 2-3 WAR throughout the lineup and starting rotation. You avoid taking chances on long-term contracts that run mostly in a player's declining years.

The playoffs are a crapshoot and I don't think it makes sense to try to plan to have a great team in year X and punt in year Y.

I do think, however, that because of this confluence of talent currently in their teens we will have a chance for something special in the 2018-2020 period when many of them will be reaching the majors and Freeman and Simmons will still be under contract.

This type of approach makes a lot of sense for mid-market teams. I think we can build a roster for 2016 that has a median win projection around 80 wins without trading any of our low-minors prospects.

[nsacpi]

This type of approach makes a lot of sense for mid-market teams. I think we can build a roster for 2016 that has a median win projection around 80 wins without trading any of our low-minors prospects.

Possible, but more difficult after the Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade.

My plan for this off-season would center around exploiting the glut of FA starting pitching. I would stay away from the high end guys (Price, Cueto, Greinke, Zimmerman). But there is a large group of 15-20 more than adequate starting pitchers available after those four. I would be patient and look to scoop someone up late in the off-season. The last three off-seasons have seen pitchers like Lohse, Santana and Shields without suitors late in the process. By waiting we can get a bargain and most importantly limit the number of years of any contract.

I would also bring back Mike Minor if the prognosis on his shoulder was reasonably good. The idea again is to build up some starting pitching depth. That way if one or two of Folty, Perez or Banuelos develops we have a surplus to trade from.

As for bats, we have made trades recently that presumably fill our needs in left (Swisher/Bourn) and third (Olivera). At least for 2016. Catcher is the remaining need and it looks increasingly likely to me that AJ will be brought back as a stop gap.

Under this scenario it is clear that winning in 2016 would not be a priority (and I think the Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade strongly hints at that) and we would be leaving a lot of the roster construction for 2017 till the last minute. I think the plan has to be to look to pick off some decent bats from teams that decide to rebuild or fall out of contention in 2016.

I predict the front office will also try to accelerate the rebuild by trading at least one of our very promising young players in the 17-18 age group before the 2017 season.

[dak]

Possible, but more difficult after the Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade.

The Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade has some negative impact for 2016, but in my view it's minimal. The net salary impact across 2016-2017 is ~$4m. Also, the presence of Swisher should foreclose the possibility of picking up the Gomes option ($3m), and the presence of Bourn increases the likelihood of a Maybin trade (owed $9m after 2015).

[nsacpi]

The Bourn-Swisher-Johnson trade has some negative impact for 2016, but in my view it's minimal. The net salary impact across 2016-2017 is ~$4m. Also, the presence of Swisher should foreclose the possibility of picking up the Gomes option ($3m), and the presence of Bourn increases the likelihood of a Maybin trade (owed $9m after 2015).

The presence of Bourn-Swisher imo makes it much less likely that we get someone to play left (Cargo for example) in 2016 who would project as being much more productive. So the cost to 2016 goes beyond a net of 4-6M. It has to do with who will be playing left.

[dak]

The presence of Bourn-Swisher imo makes it much less likely that we get someone to play left (Cargo for example) in 2016 who would project as being much more productive. So the cost to 2016 goes beyond a net of 4-6M. It has to do with who will be playing left.

It's certainly possible, but I will be very disappointed with the front office if we do not add a quality OF this offseason. We have only one solid everyday regular signed (the Greek) and the rest are all 1 WAR or replacement level types. We have considerable $, and we have several decent MLB / MLB-ready trade chips (Maybin, Folty, Bethancourt) depending on who is and is not in our long-term plans.

[Julio3000]

We have only one solid everyday regular signed (the Greek)

Like another guy known as the Greek, this one is a quiet, productive old guy. That Greek disappeared after season two. I hope ours lasts that long.