MINORS THREAD TUESDAY 4/18 ... Final results

[zbhargrove]

Allard only had one K... back to Rome

[50PoundHead]

Melvin is bad but surprisingly he did hit 20 homers last year, steal 27 bases and had a 10 DRS in the OF. That is not bad 4th OFer material, sure beats what Boni brings us (esp. since Snit thinks his strong side is left handed which is his weakest side by a lot).

That said, Lane Adams went 2-4 with 1 RBI tonight playing CFer for G-Braves. I'd like Boni DFA'd for Adams asap.

Half the posters here would probably be better than Bonifacio.

[auyushu]

I didn't call the trade necessary. I said getting rid of him was necessary and that I didn't agree how it was done. Reread the post maybe?

Fair enough.

[thewupk]

Melvin is bad but surprisingly he did hit 20 homers last year, steal 27 bases and had a 10 DRS in the OF. That is not bad 4th OFer material, sure beats what Boni brings us (esp. since Snit thinks his strong side is left handed which is his weakest side by a lot).

That said, Lane Adams went 2-4 with 1 RBI tonight playing CFer for G-Braves. I'd like Boni DFA'd for Adams asap.

Melvin had 1.6 and 1.4 bWAR the past two seasons. We can and are doing worse then that.

I don't blame all of those moves on Copy because he wasn't even the GM yet. So who knows how much say he actually had in those considering it wasn't really his decision to call up Swanson.

Whether it's Copy, Hart, JS, or whoever it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the front office has a poor track record with their big trades since Wren was fired. The Swanson/Miller deal was a lifesaver. I will give the FO credit for doing what they did but that type of trade is not the norm and is one of the direct reasons that Stewart got fired.

I like to look at what they have done to get an idea of what we can be looking for in the future as far as getting value in trades. That landscape isn't a good one.

[bravesguy]

This argument is very pedestrian. It is like missing the forrest for the trees.

The whole strategy was developed around high end/ceiling caliber players (primarily pitchers). If you are going to have a middle payroll, you better have the half your team you are paying well to be high ceiling. They looked at what they had and only 1 or 2 of their current roster fit that bill. So they decided to find them in the minors. Simple strategy, trade low ceiling or short term for high ceiling or long term to build from within.

Thus guys like Heyward, JUP (short term) had to go. Melvin, Simmons, Miller (low ceiling) had to go. They had to search the other teams to see what high ceiling guys they could get and go after them. If they can flood the minors with high ceiling guys, 2 of 10 will make it. So thus you need 50 in the system to hope to get the 6 you need to develop for the MLB team.

You cant judge trades based on if the prospect they receive succeeds otherwise you negate the overall strategy. They took what they could get, put them in the system and play the numbers game. If you want every trade 10 of 10 to succeed, then you need to go low ceiling / high floor guys. Wrong strategy (Wren strategy)!

I look at the system and see 50 high ceiling guys, the question now is will 6 succeed?

[Tapate50]

That's the catch with trades for prospects though...No one has a crystal ball and at the time all of the trades were considered a haul. Even the Simmons deal...

I think Coppys sweet spot is the smaller nuanced deals.

The thing I have a growing issue with, is that we have a huge payroll this year but the bench, and pen suck. We basically blew a ton of money on pitchers to hold a spot instead of spending on quality upgrades that could be here for a while. I understand why, it just sucks to see what we got for our money.

Then again that goes back to the façade of "competing" this year I guess. Most of them aren't long term commitments, but its sad to see what the FA market gets you now that we have a decent payroll... its like we are running in place.

I hope that we can "flip" Phillips, Colon, Dickey, Viz, etc... at the deadline for teams in need and I'll at least see why we spent a bit more in FA this season. I would imagine that's the plan, but those fall apart at times (Grilli, Jason).

[chipchildress]

This argument is very pedestrian. It is like missing the forrest for the trees.

The whole strategy was developed around high end/ceiling caliber players (primarily pitchers). If you are going to have a middle payroll, you better have the half your team you are paying well to be high ceiling. They looked at what they had and only 1 or 2 of their current roster fit that bill. So they decided to find them in the minors. Simple strategy, trade low ceiling or short term for high ceiling or long term to build from within.

Thus guys like Heyward, JUP (short term) had to go. Melvin, Simmons, Miller (low ceiling) had to go. They had to search the other teams to see what high ceiling guys they could get and go after them. If they can flood the minors with high ceiling guys, 2 of 10 will make it. So thus you need 50 in the system to hope to get the 6 you need.

You cant judge trades based on if the prospect they receive succeeds otherwise you negate the overall strategy. They took what they could get, put them in the system and play the numbers game. If you want every trade 10 of 10 to succeed, then you need to go low ceiling / high floor guys. Wrong strategy (Wren strategy)!

I look at the system and see 50 high ceiling guys, the question now is will 6 succeed?

stupid is as stupid does

[bravesguy]

It is kind of a shell game at the MLB level in FA. We spend 20M on Colon and Dickey. I agree that seems like a lot, but you have to fill out a 5 man rotation adn playing Wisler and Blair at the MLB level hurt them, the team, and the fan base last year. Bad for development, Bad for business.

[thewupk]

That's the catch with trades for prospects though...No one has a crystal ball and at the time all of the trades were considered a haul. Even the Simmons deal...

I dunno. We traded the Ozzie Smith (on a good contract) of our time for a lottery prospect. There will always be people that spin each trade to fit their narrative of the front office though. But that one screamed horrible value at the time for those who were looking at it.

[bravesfanMatt]

Simmons deal is my least favorite deal of them all. Not because of what we got back but because of who we gave up. Simmons is a Hall of Fame defender, a once in a generation type player. And I even like Newcomb but I still don't think you trade a special player like that.

[Southcack77]

Heyward one season (6 war) was 50% better than Shelby's last 2 seasons (4 war). Miller will need to pick up this and next year to match his output

Is this the new contrarian, smart guy, take on this trade?

Very little of this analysis makes any sense.

[Southcack77]

Melvin is bad but surprisingly he did hit 20 homers last year, steal 27 bases and had a 10 DRS in the OF. That is not bad 4th OFer material, sure beats what Boni brings us (esp. since Snit thinks his strong side is left handed which is his weakest side by a lot).

That said, Lane Adams went 2-4 with 1 RBI tonight playing CFer for G-Braves. I'd like Boni DFA'd for Adams asap.

Well Melvin Upton isn't even in the majors. I guess we could be paying a minor league player 16.5 million to be the fourth outfielder and maybe we'd have some undisclosed extra prospects that could easily have failed and currently be criticized by the same folks who turd on guys like Newcomb.

But of course these people know that if the trade had gone done differently, that Atlanta would have exactly the prospects that San Diego got from Boston and they'd be killing it. Just like they know if the Braves had offered a certain contract to a free agent that he would have jumped on board with Atlanta rather than the team he signed with.

It's all somewhat pointless. Atlanta traded short term assets and longer term assets for what they got. All of the returns were reasonable considered prospects. Some of them panned out, some of them were traded for other prospects and the net result of the reorganization and money savings from these moves is that the Braves have one of the best three minor league systems in the majors.

And people can whine about how particular deals turned out and how they didn't all result in massive outperformance in favor of Atlanta, but that's really what all of the moves together represent.

[chipchildress]

i suspect there was more to it than just trying to get prospects.

the braves had a new stadium to pay for. hard to do that and have millions to pay to players.

[Southcack77]

i suspect there was more to it than just trying to get prospects.

the braves had a new stadium to pay for. hard to do that and have millions to pay to players.

They also wanted to spend a lot of money in the international and amateur drafts.

And they also used money to buy prospects.

And to sign players they wanted to flip for prospects.

Even if you disagree with how they spent the savings, the flexibility was worth something on its own. Particularly to a front office that was trying to remake the team.

The next result is that the Braves ended up with a quality minor league system and some long term major league pieces.

[Julio3000]

I dunno. We traded the Ozzie Smith (on a good contract) of our time for a lottery prospect. There will always be people that spin each trade to fit their narrative of the front office though. But that one screamed horrible value at the time for those who were looking at it.

Yeah, this is how I remember it.

With the caveat that Newcomb could certainly be the late-blooming stud that folks think he'll be, I can't remember a prospect about whom I heard more rationalizations for underwhelming performance.

He's a small conference college guy, so he'll take longer. Minor league umps are terrible. He only had one bad inning. He walks a ton of guys but doesn't get hit hard. Except for the inning where he was bad, he was really good . . . and so on. Of course, all of those things could be true, but I see a guy who just needs to be better.

[Southcack77]

Yeah, this is how I remember it.

With the caveat that Newcomb could certainly be the late-blooming stud that folks think he'll be, I can't remember a prospect about whom I heard more rationalizations for underwhelming performance.

He's a small conference college guy, so he'll take longer. Minor league umps are terrible. He only had one bad inning. He walks a ton of guys but doesn't get hit hard. Except for the inning where he was bad, he was really good . . . and so on. Of course, all of those things could be true, but I see a guy who just needs to be better.

Newcomb repeated the season that made him a prospect and seems on track to do at least that at a higher level.

I don't think that makes him a flop and his stuff otherwise is difficult to hit.

He's got a wide range of possible outcomes at this point.

[Julio3000]

Newcomb repeated the season that made Him prospect and seems on track to do at least that at a half ghee level.

I don't think that makes him a flop and his stuff otherwise is difficult to hit.

He's got a wide range of possible outcomes at this point.

I'm not saying he's a flop, just that there is still a decent gap between expectations and performance. If he's a wild lefty who put it together late, fine. If he ends up as a bullpen arm or fringey starter, that's a pretty ****ty return for Tron and his team-friendly extent.

[50PoundHead]

Melvin had 1.6 and 1.4 bWAR the past two seasons. We can and are doing worse then that.

I don't blame all of those moves on Copy because he wasn't even the GM yet. So who knows how much say he actually had in those considering it wasn't really his decision to call up Swanson.

Whether it's Copy, Hart, JS, or whoever it doesn't really matter. What does matter is the front office has a poor track record with their big trades since Wren was fired. The Swanson/Miller deal was a lifesaver. I will give the FO credit for doing what they did but that type of trade is not the norm and is one of the direct reasons that Stewart got fired.

I like to look at what they have done to get an idea of what we can be looking for in the future as far as getting value in trades. That landscape isn't a good one.

Well Melvin is doing worse than that as well seeing he's not in the big leagues. One has to wonder why there was so little interest in him after the Blue Jays (who aren't burning things up) let him go.

[Enscheff]

I dunno. We traded the Ozzie Smith (on a good contract) of our time for a lottery prospect. There will always be people that spin each trade to fit their narrative of the front office though. But that one screamed horrible value at the time for those who were looking at it.

The problem wasn't getting Newcomb as part of the package for Simmons. The problem was allowing the inclusion of Aybar to water down the overall value of the return. What value did he add other than giving the Braves someone to stick at SS during a lost season? They could have found that on the FA market for peanuts. Why in the **** is a rebuilding team concerned with acquiring MLB talent in a trade anyways?

Watering down the return for a valuable asset has been a common theme during the rebuild, and it's a major issue. The Braves have consistently handled their assets in sub-optimal ways.

The White Sox didn't attach a crappy contract to Sale when they traded him. They didn't insist on the Nats sending back a crappy MLB OFer to take Eaton's place on the roster. They maximized the long term return, which is exactly what a rebuilding team should be doing, regardless of what anyone may think of the individual prospects they got in return.

It's a process over results thing, and few of the posters around here can grasp the concept.

[thewupk]

Well Melvin is doing worse than that as well seeing he's not in the big leagues. One has to wonder why there was so little interest in him after the Blue Jays (who aren't burning things up) let him go.

No idea. There is no way that Melvin is worse than Boni right now.